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 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

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.

This brings us back to the bit I still don't understand about "current" forces.

All this rotation only needs to be actively induced if the bodies are able to disspate their energy very quickly -- or if the whole story about conservation of energy and wotnot is wrong from the ground up.

In Newtonian terms, there is acceleration all the time, and energy changing between kinetic and potential, but conserved over all. Except as "slow acting" effects like tidal forces and and drag change things permanently. With energy conserved over all.

Electromagnetic forces may be neglected by orthodox cosmology, but when a force is exerted, even the plasma physicists say the acceleration depends on the mass, don't they?

It doesn't matter whether Newton thought God set everything into straight line motion: that's not what the First Law means to us now. Confusing Newtonian mechanics with Newtonian gravitation isn't helping to keep things straight.

The problem of clumping -- why there are lumps of anything at all with gaps in between, as opposed to a uniform field of energy or particles, as might be expected from a Big Bang, say -- has not been answered, as far as I know, but given that there are clumps, I said even God could not set everything in straight line motion because the forces acting between the bodies would immediately deflect their courses (however imperceptibly). The straight lines can only be initial, boundary conditions, tangents to the actual trajectories. (Unless the forces actually sum to zero anywhere. Unlikely.)

The centre of gravity concept can only be valid if Newton proved that [mass?] is proportional to and therefore a property of matter. What physical process did Newton uses to prove this was indeed a fact?

What physical process can ever prove the concepts in which physical processes are described and understood? But for the closest approximation, witness all the whole history of empirical science and engineering.

After several attempts they find the times from stem to stern are always faster than from stern to stem... They can't explain it.

In this scenario, they contrive to keep an equal distance from the ship and still find the times are not equal. The apparent path is a circle, the actual path because of the current is an open loop {an epicycle, helix or whatever...}.

How does this relate to the Earth's apparently elliptical path? What is the reason for orbiting at all? What is the equivalent of contriving to stay at a constant distance?

If the Solar System is moving, then Earth's 'true' path through space {to this approximation, anyway} is also an open loop (or helix or epicycle or whatever). How does a truly open loop appearing to be closed show that the ellipse is an illusion caused by forward movement? If we can appear to close the loop at all (by returning to the same distance from the Sun), why wouldn't it appear circular?

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.

So by "current" force, you do mean one currently acting? And Newtonian gravity can't be one because it takes 2 forces to explain the orbit. Except that Newton explains the orbit with 1.

I don't geddit. Are you thinking all (current) forces must do work? Where does Earth get the umph to catch up? Why does "the system" care whether Earth orbits or not?

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.

Per the First Law, there's no force dragging the Solar System along, unless there is some... er... drag. How do we know this is wrong? Or that there is drag? {Drag dissipates energy, so there would then be a slew of questions about how, where it goes, where the force comes from...}

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.

Sounds like a (typical) misunderstanding of Newtonian orbital dynamics. It's not rocket science.

Oh. Yes it is.

Still, can you start from the beginning and tell us what you think Newton(ianism) thinks is going on in an orbit?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We've had several occasions to say we're willing to entertain a challenge to Newton, but we just haven't seen it done yet. Once again here, the suggestion that Newtonianism is inadequate does not seem to be borne out. Has anyone tried to see whether what Bros has to say is adequate?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
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.


Wow.

I never clued into this before.

And it can't be coincidence.

And I think I know why it happens. At least I think it's part of a larger phenomenon I've identified. This is important.

That I miss stuff like this is the reason my work gets stuck in places!!!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And it can't be coincidence.

Maybe so. But for the purposes of this argument it is a coincidence. Have you checked the situation with the other planets' axes and apsides? {AP-sid-eez, ap-SIDE-eez}
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
And it can't be coincidence.

Maybe so. But for the purposes of this argument it is a coincidence. Have you checked the situation with the other planets' axes and apsides? {AP-sid-eez, ap-SIDE-eez}


Not yet. It's on my to-do list though.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/citadelp.html

laws that were created by men hundreds of years ago before we had any real knowledge of reality, but which now control the reality that empirical science paints a picture of for us.

So the real knowledge of reality some of us now have is independent of empirical science? (Komori won't like that.)

...what matter is doing, cooling

OK, interesting. I gues you've gotta buy the book.

But the balls, sitting motionless on the billiard table, are not motionless. They are traveling around eight hundred miles an hour where I live, moving with the surface of the Earth as the Earth rotates on its axis at about 25,000 miles per hour. They are moving at the rate of 67,000 miles per hour as the Earth orbits the sun, and about 300 miles per hour as the sun falls within the galactic arm.

Thus, the existing laws of motion do not adequately explain motion

Eh?

empirical science has no physical description of what is holding the balls motionless with respect to the surface of the Earth

Eh?

no physical description of the forces that make the planets rotate on their axes or orbit the sun, or the sun to drift with the galactic arm of which it is a part.

The loaded term here appears to be "the forces that make the planets rotate...".

we know that all objects, no matter where, come to rest with respect to the current forces that are acting upon them

Eh?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/mmp.html

Without the need to examine reality to see how it is that we can see what we see in reality, empirical science simply ignores one of the most important effects of the electromagnetic emission field, and specifically the portion of that field that is visible to the eye, light.

Eh?

the mathematical fact that light will expand in a sphere if nothing interferes with its expansion process.

This guy likes mathematical facts, not empirical ones? Most un-Komorish.

The feature of the expansion of light that escapes empirical science is that it not only diminishes as it expands, it diminishes uniformly.

Eh?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/weatherp.html

weather models which can't explain the simplest thing about the weather, why clouds move faster in the direction of the Earth's rotation the further north or south they move from the equator, in short, what causes the jet stream.

That's the simplest thing? Because Newtonianism prohibits reality from intruding?

Newton and his heirs claim, as a result of pure ignorance, that the Earth's rotation results from historical forces, that it gained its momentum from the mythical swirling mass of gas out of which our solar system was supposed to have condensed

I think we're all agreed here that the swirling gas cloud collapsing into an accretion disc necessarily false, but this bit about pure ignorance needs a lot of substantiation.

If the planet's rotation is the result of historical forces, then if its surface were allowed to interact with the atmosphere, the atmosphere would produce a drag on the rotation that would long ago have slowed the Earth down to a standstill

Um, the atmosphere would be rotating due to the same "historical forces": it's not independent of the planet. But they say there is drag slowing Earth's rotation. And the atmosphere is certainly not considered a closed system: energy input from the Sun and output to space is important in atmospheric dynamics.

empirical science, unable to deal with the hidden forces that cause the motion around us, simply ignores those forces

Eh?

If the atmosphere cannot be interacting with the surface of the Earth to produce a drag on the Earth's rotation, then the Earth, by the same hogwash cannot effect the motion of the atmosphere when in fact, with the Earth spinning at 25,000 miles per hour at its equator, the friction of the planet with the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to speed up to that same speed.

Er, if it's going at the same speed then there's no relative movement and no drag and no reason for energy to be dissipated.

When the atmosphere is pushed up, not by evaporation, but by the sunlight breaking down the molecules of water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms

Interesting. Does evaporation not happen at all? Or does it just not drive convection? I didn't think they thought it did.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/lightp.html

Empirical science explains gravity away as a property of matter, as if this dynamic force were simply something like color or hardness.

Er, no, gravity is explained away as a property of matter in a very different way from colour or hardness.

In short, its theory of gravity doesn't explain anything, so empirical science naturally claims it explains everything.

Er, that's in too short. But this is only publisher's blurb.

Because water waves have no independent existence, the light that warms the planet and produces its life, illuminating the planet to allow the life that evolved there to navigate reality successfully, has no independent existence.

Er, no. Water waves having to have a medium does not preclude EM from existing without one. What can a medium be made of? Something has to turn out to be fundamental.

This hogwash ignores electricity and magnetism, both of which are inextricably tied up with light.

I agree that if light is both wave and particle then it can be neither wave nor particle, but we are treated to any actual hogwash here. But this is only publisher's blurb.

Newton believed that matter was made up uniformly of particles (he had to take this absurd position to prove that gravity was a property of matter)

The particles or their uniformity is absurd, but that what matter is really doing is cooling down is OK...?

If Young had known about inductance, he would have seen clearly what was happening: Light was made up of the same particles as electricity, those particles were neutralized by the inductive flows light (and electricity) form, and the dark lines that appeared on the screen were simply the result of the split light, overexpanded, being recombined by the inductive flows so that there was no light to fall on the collection screen.

Good, that's much simpler. Is it?

But empirical science is controlled by the timing of its creation of facts because once created, scientific facts become more real than real facts and crowd out reality at the expense of fantasy.

Didn't stop inductance being discovered and understood in a way that allows it to form a cornerstone of Bros' theory of light though, did it?

[Light] diminishes uniformly, its structure controlled by the inductive flows it produces when it passes.

Aren't uniformity and structure kinda mutually exclusive? If light is particulate, isn't there bound to be a scale at a which it is not uniform, does not diminish uniformly?

And it wouldn't have been too much longer before open scientific investigation discovered that it was the recombining of the expanding light by its inductive flows that produced the force that causes objects to move back towards the source of the expanding electromagnetic emission fields produced by cooling objects such as the sun and the planets, light and gravity being the only two phenomena that measure out exactly the same in their physical operation.

Light: Replacing Three Centuries of Misconceptions unifies light, electricity and magnetism with a physical explanation of how the single particle with its two properties disclosed in Atoms, Stars and Minds produces each. It also tackles the hardest job in science, putting the spectrum back in its proper order, with yellow the shortest frequency (as opposed to the misguided notion of wavelength), red, rather than blue the next shortest, and then green followed by blue, the longest, setting a universe based on red as the shortest wavelength, on its tail, reversing the Big Bangers and reversing the rotation of the galaxy so that it comes within the actual reality of the movement of the solar system.

Wow, he promises a lot. Have you bought the book(s), KomoriDude?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/wswwp.html

Now, the time it takes something to move from one position to another is strictly controlled by the formula, time equal rate times distance traveled.

s = vt.

If t = Rs then R, Bros' "rate", is 1/v. No wonder we're confused.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/interview.html
a force that, computed on the basis of an inverse square law that is measurable in falling objects

>BRAAAP< Wrong. Thank you for playing.


The silliest concept... is that objects move in a straight line unless a force acts to change that motion. You couldn't find a more untestable proposition yet who could ever disagree with it?

Quite so. So what?

If you start out with everything going in a straight line, then you don't have to ever worry about what's making things move in the first place.

>BRAAAP< Wrong. Thank you for playing.

and

>BRAAAP< Wrong. Thank you for playing.

With gravity a property of mass, it can never be overcome because it would take more mass to do so.

Eh?

Energy can never be created nor destroyed so that any attempt to create overunity devices is laughed out of existence

But perpetual motion was taken very seriously for a long time. The idea of conservation of energy arose to explain why no one could ever make it work.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.copernican-series.com/kepler.html

HOW TO COMPUTE THE SPEED AND DIRECTION OF THE SUN

Kepler's Law states that the planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus of the ellipse so that a line connecting the sun and a planet will sweep out equal areas in equal times.

Correct. That's 2 separate statements, by the way.

An ellipse is a central conic, symmetric about a central point so that the major axis passing through the focus bisects the ellipse, making the areas of both sides of the bisected ellipse equal. The perihelion and aphelion are the closest and furthest points from the sun, the focus, that the Earth's orbit intersects the major axis.

Correct.

By applying Kepler's Law to the Earth's orbit, these points are placed in early January and July.

Eh? There's nothing in Kepler's Law that would determine where the apsides actually are.

{The Equal-Areas-in-Equal-Times Law applies at all times, by the way: the velocity varies so that a long thin triangle is swept out in the same time as a short fat one at the other end of the orbit. It's not specifically about the apsides: they're just a convenient pair of points.}

However, the time it takes for the Earth to move between these astronomical points, January to July is 72 hours less than the time it takes to move from July to January, sweeping out equal areas in unequal times.

We've done this to death: it's not true.

Thus, applying Kepler's Law to determine the perihelion and aphelion of the Earth's orbit disproves Kepler's Law!

If the apsides were known only from Kepler's Law, coming up with unequal periods would just be a cock-up on the calculation front.

The perihelion and aphelion actually coincide approximately with the winter and summer solstices, the angle of the Earth's tilt being itself tilted less than a degree away from the direction of the sun's motion, resulting in a time differential approximately thirty hours less.

So Kepler's Law is invalid but we still know the apsides are where they said they were. How's that then?

With the sun moving toward the winter solstice, D1, the distance the Earth travels between the winter and summer solstices is shorter than D2, the distance the Earth travels between the summer and winter solstices.

No need to grit one's teeth thinking solstices should be perihelion/aphelion here: the solstices are 180° apart and the suggestion is that the Sun is moving along the line between them.

Because the Earth's rate is equal in both periods, D1 divided by the time it takes to move from the winter to the summer solstice equals D2 divided by the time it takes to move from the summer to the winter solstice.

Sounds like constant angular frequency and a circular orbit.

D1 and D2 can be expressed in terms of V, the velocity of the sun. D1 equals the distance of the bisected Earth's orbit (pi times D/2)

Definitely a circular orbit then. At least we finally know the geometry he's talking about. Shame we still don't have his explanation for for the orbit. Shame the Sun's trajectory is taken to be a dead straight line.

minus the time it takes for the Earth to move between the winter and summer solstices multiplied by V.

Well, that's taking a semicircular path and chopping a bit V.T1 long out of it. A reasonable approximation if V.T1 is small enough, coz in reality the path would be continuously foreshortened. But if Kepler can't be anything but precise, you'd think it would have to be argued that this equation doesn't exist to be simultaneously solved for V.

D2 equals the distance of the bisected Earth's orbit plus the time it takes for the Earth to move between the summer and winter solstices multiplied by V.

Well, that's taking a semicircular path and inserting a bit V.T2 long into it. A reasonable approximation if V.T2 is small enough, coz in reality the path would be continuously elongated...

Where the absolute distance is 1/2 the Earth's orbit ( pi (3.14)x 93,000,000), the time it takes for the Earth to move from the winter to the summer solstice is 4362.22 hours and the time it takes for the Earth to move between the summer and winter solstice is 4403.35, the speed of the sun, V, is determined as follows:

Not that it meets the strict standards demanded from Kepler and Newton, this kinda works if the difference in time between the solstices can not be explained by the difference between solstice and apsis. (In a circular orbit, there is no apsis.) But we have not seen this objection upheld. And it assumes that the eccentricity of the orbit, the max and min distances from the Sun and the positions of the apsides are all inferred (incorrectly) from... well, I'm not sure what.

Who's gonna look up the method by which they actually determined the 5 million kilometre difference between one side of the Sun and t'other?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

KK said:

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.


No.

The current affects both boats equally. So there is no time difference between one direction and the other. If there was, they'd be able to know how fast the current was but, as far as both boats are concerned, there is no current.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brian Ambrose wrote:
No.

The current affects both boats equally. So there is no time difference between one direction and the other. If there was, they'd be able to know how fast the current was but, as far as both boats are concerned, there is no current.


Glad you confirmed that Brian. It seemed so bewilderingly obvious, I thought I might be missing something... or we had slipped into an alternate universe or something.

{By the way Komorikid, are they letting you out soon, or should we get Bernie to pop 'round with a cake with a file in it?--It's good though, that they allow convicts internet access.}
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

there is no time difference between one direction and the other. If there was, they'd be able to know how fast the current was

I can see Komori latching ont to this to say "that's what I'm telling you. They thought they were becalmed, but the time difference tells them they're drifting."

But as you say, the boats are both in the current. The speed of rowing is the speed they can cut through the water, which is stationary with respect to the ship (and vice versa).

If they played out a weighted line that hit the sea bed, they'd know they were drifting. If they threw out a float, it would sit there and they'd be none the wiser.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Jump to:  
Page 9 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