| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | At every instant, for each centimetre the Sun moves, the earth moves the same amount in the same direction... |
Well that's not quite accurate now. The Sun and Earth move distances in relation to one another commensurate with their relative mass. No?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | I think I give up now. |
Please don't -- because it's from you and one or two others that I learn so much about these motions. KK may only act as a foil but he gets you posting!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second that... I learnt a lot from the balls in the spaceship! (Eventually.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Brian Ambrose wrote: | | At every instant, for each centimetre the Sun moves, the earth moves the same amount in the same direction... |
Well that's not quite accurate now. The Sun and Earth move distances in relation to one another commensurate with their relative mass. No? |
No - if I understand your objection correctly. Assuming they are travelling in a straight line (I know they're not exactly) and all things being equal, there is no difference in their speed (relative to another system) once you factor out the earth's orbit. That is, if we start with a stationary sun with earth going round it in a perfect circle, then impart a 1 mph 'push' to the whole system (or indeed, move past the whole system in our spaceship at 1 mph), the sun will move 24 miles on the first day, and the earth will also have moved 24 miles (and returned to its start position relative to the sun). And the orbit will (of course) still be perfectly circular.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
All right, here's a condundrum for you all. M J Harper can't understand any of this yet he managed to come up with a completely revolutionary and fundamental Cosmic Theory. None of you has (I include Ishmael, I'm afraid). Why can my brain do this but yours collectively can't?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | No - if I understand your objection correctly. |
Neither of us understood the other. Of course I don't disagree with what you wrote here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | None of you has (I include Ishmael, I'm afraid). Why can my brain do this but yours collectively can't? |
I think it's debatable whether I have -- and in fairness to me, you haven't yet been able to understand my complete thesis -- though each time I explain it, you are amazed afresh!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Out there in the universe, everything seems to be going round in circles. Planets around suns (planets, nod to Mick), suns around other suns, systems around galaxies, galaxies around galaxies...
One way to try to look at this this seemingly ubiquitous habit of stuff to move and rotate around other stuff is that it was all started off by God/Big bang - that is, it has some origin in the unknowable distant past, and everything since is just mass and momentum - stuff just happens to clump together and start orbiting and switching on and becoming suns. This is not entirely satisfactory though, is it? We might think this would tend toward the chaotic, rather than regular behaviour we observe.
Another way to look at it is to wonder whether, rather than all this circular motion being the (largely inexplicable) result of a one-off event, it is instead the natural result of an ongoing, orderly, active process. And the thing is, there is a known, experimentally demonstrable effect that induces rotation: electricity.
So, notwithstanding Komori's red-herrings, he certainly has a point to make about the nature of the universe and the likelihood that rotation is, in some way, actively induced. Actually, having said it, it seems almost undeniable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | So, notwithstanding Komori's red-herrings, he certainly has a point to make about the nature of the universe and the likelihood that rotation is, in some way, actively induced. Actually, having said it, it seems almost undeniable. |
EXCEPT....
That by assuming, as Newton told us, that rotation is naught but the result of an "historical force", I have been able to make sense of our local universe in ways that have thus far eluded all mankind.
When I began my project, I was prepared to find evidence that the universe was powered by electricity. In fact, I was prepared to find evidence for many of the ideas proposed by Electric Universe proponents. I simply found it unnecessary to invoke electro-magnetism -- except in one case. That one instance, however, may be fundamental.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Ish wrote:
And that is, to be precise, just as Newton would have it.
It's not about bodies but centres of gravity. |
The centre of gravity concept can only be valid if Newton proved that matter is a proportional to and therefore a property of matter.
What physical process did Newton use to prove this was indeed a fact?
I'll ignore Grant's little ad hom. Orthodoxy gets so annoyed when mere convicts question their authority.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Brian wrote:
| You doggedly refuse to see that both the Sun AND the earth are moving. At every instant, for each centimetre the Sun moves, the earth moves the same amount in the same direction, once you factor out its own motion around the sun. Your man in the park is not only walking around you, he is sidestepping ALL THE TIME to match your pace and by doing this maintains a perfect circle. |
There is a ship becalmed on a flat sea. To amuse themselves the crew decide to race the rowboat from stem to stern then turn around and race from stern to stem against the clock. After several attempts they find the times from stem to stern are always faster than from stern to stem.
Thinking they are tiring out after the initial run from stem to stern and the return journey is slower because they are exhausted, they start the race again when refreshed and this time start at the stern and conduct the race in the opposite sequence from the first one.
They achieve exactly the same results. The trip from stern to stem is always slower than the trip from stem to stern.
They can't explain it.
What they don't see is that although the ship is becalmed it is slowly moving forward with the current. When the rowboat is moving from stem to stern the ship is moving forward with the current while the rowboat is moving in the opposite direction against the current. Although both are being pulled forward by the current the rowboat's momentum is greater than the current's forward movement because it is powered by the rower who overcomes the current.
It therefore takes him less time to travel from the stem to stern because the ship is moving forward as the boat is moving backwards. It takes longer to travel from the stern to the stem because the ship has moved forward as the rowboat was travelling backwards and the rowboat now has to make up the extra distance the ship has travelled forwards while it was travelling backwards.
The motion of the ship, which represents the Sun, is determined only by the current. The motion of the rowboat, which represents the planet, is determined by the the current and the CURRENT FORCE of the rower; it relies on two forces without which it could never hope to make any headway and would remain inline with its starting point; the stem.
Every instant the Sun is moving forward the Earth is also moving forward but the Earth is also orbiting the Sun at the same time. The Earth's momentum is able to overcome this forward motion as it orbits, just as the rower overcomes the forward momentum of the current.
If it didn't it wouldn't be orbiting in the first place.
You can't factor out its motion around the Sun because it is independent of the force that is acting on both of them. You can only factor out the common force that affects BOTH of them and that is the force dragging the Sun/Earth in the same direction.
When you factor out the common force you are left with different times.
And by the way the two guys in the park are both travelling at 1000 mph as the Earth rotates; that's the common force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | There is a ship becalmed on a flat sea. To amuse themselves the crew decide to race the rowboat from stem to stern then turn around and race from stern to stem against the clock. |
We have just demonstrated for you that this is not what is happening. You have ignored the rebuttal.
Something has gone wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | I'll ignore Grant's little ad hom. Orthodoxy gets so annoyed when mere convicts question their authority. |
I certainly don't mind you confusing me with Grant (or has he been having a go at you as well?) but to accuse me of representing orthodoxy is rather wide of the mark (I'm such an uneducated ignoramus, I haven't a clue what the orthodox position is on just about anything). But I am reasonably good at analysing data and having done so, I'll call it as I see It, (whichever position that supports).
I also have a pretty well developed bullshit detector and you, my friend, have an amazing ability to set off the alarm.
You are so desperate to have people believe you are capable of original thought, that you are prepared to present the ideas of others as your own, without being able to fully represent those ideas, due to your basic lack of understanding.
When somebody points out deficiencies in the theory to which you have attached yourself (or worse still, blows your cover and proves the theory was not your own in the first place) you become aggressive and lose any semblance of rational thought.
Sadly, you are metamorphosing into a figure of ridicule... Shame... I used to admire and agree with many of your early posts... Just what exactly has happened to you?
(By the way, I have several close friends who have spent time inside, so I certainly won't hold your convictions against you.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | There is a ship becalmed on a flat sea. To amuse themselves the crew decide to race the rowboat from stem to stern then turn around and race from stern to stem against the clock. After several attempts they find the times from stem to stern are always faster than from stern to stem. |
I would get that stopwatch calibrated if I were you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Trying to catch up... and repeating some things Brian and Ishmael already said.
| He asserted that because this was the same inverse square law that caused objects to fall to the surface of the Earth | | He failed to demonstrate that there was any relationship between the inverse square nature of falling object and the motion of planets. | | The real reason why objects fall by the inverse square law is up for grabs | | Without r2 Newton has no reason to assume the alleged speeding up and slowing down was by an inverse square factor. Therefore the force that causes matter to fall is not the same force that caused planets to orbit. |
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Is it because g is given in metres per second squared or feet per second per second that an inverse square law is thought to apply to falling objects (of terrestrial experience)? It doesn't.
| Jupiter is not a GAS giant. Shoemaker-Levi fragments impacted a SOLID surface beneath the opaque atmosphere and left impact evidence that was visible for months. |
Why didn't the opaque atmosphere close up again quickly? If a thin blanket can bear the scars for months, so could a thick one?
Whatever the reasons for describing comets as icy, their mass can not be determined from their orbits.
| The trouble is density can't be used in Newton's equation it only works with evenly spaced corpuscles by volume. |
Pish.
| You either believe in the standard orthodox view that the Earth is a closed system or you don't. |
I don't think this is an absolute. Without loss of objectivity, you can define the system and whether it's closed for particular purposes. While extra-terrestrial charged particles interacting with the piezo-electric quartz in Earth's crust may be worth following up, it doesn't follow that they have any immediate effect on rotation or orbit.
| No one has explained how the perihelion/aphelion is somehow more accurate than the solstice points. No one can explain why no matter which reference point you use, the Earth sweeps out equal areas in unequal times. |
The solstices are about the alignment of the tilted axis with the Sun. It is coincidental that they occur close to the line of symmetry dividing the orbit in half. {Even if, on some deeper analysis, it turns out that the solstices do tend towards the peri/aphelion, this is irrelevant since they do not presently coincide.} So forget solstices. This argument and Kepler are explicitly about the bodies tracing out an ellipse, whose limiting points are the perihelion and aphelion. {The perihelion is a periapsis and the aphelion is an apoapsis; there are two apsides.}And for bodies, read barycentres.
For any other pair of points, the ellipse is not divided into equal areas.
| Of the twenty years I calculated, not one even comes close. |
The tables that record Earth's crossing of the major axis do not record the Earth-Moon system's crossing of the axis. {To be strict, Earth('s centre) doesn't pass through the precise point of the peri- or aphelion at all because it does not coincide with the Earth-Moon barycentre.} The tables are useless without interpretation; and the interpretation is that there will always be a discrepancy of plus or minus a few days, because it will in general not be a New Moon or Full Moon when Earth-Moon reaches the apsis.
Did you find ANY instance in your little exercise that showed that the Earth sweeps out equal areas in equal times?
In the twenty year I used it NEVER happened. And it NEVER happened for you either. |
Does the whole argument stem from taking the tables at face value; compounded by taking the solstices for the apsides?
| but Kepler's law is wrong, it is not perfect so there is no inverse square component to derive. |
That's not how it's done. The inverse square is just the first component to derive.
| Kepler was talking perfect ellipses. Without perfect ellipses there is no r2 in the formula. |
That's harsh. Are there no irrational numbers either? Is science impossible because mathematical precision exceeds any empirical precision?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
