Re: Newgrange and timekeeping
- From: Post.Post.Colonial.Boy <republican@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:16:38 +1200
On 29 Aug 2006 04:16:59 -0700, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This is not an exercise in demonstrating how Newton was wrong,and
indeed he was badly wrong,this is an exercise in appreciating the
original Copernican insight that the observed motion of the planets can
be explained by an orbitally moving Earth.
There's no argument there.
Most participants in this forum have no idea how Copernicus reasoned that the Earth orbited the
Sun and assume it is a complicated mathematical procedure but
contemporary time lapse footage makes it incredibly easy to understand
-
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The Copernican notion was Ontologically less complicated and if one
invokes Occam's razor then one is naturally led to a heliocentric view
of the solar system.
"We find, then, in this arrangement the marvelous symmetry of the
universe, and a sure linking together in harmony of the motion and size
of the spheres, such as could be perceived in no other way. For here
one may understand, by attentive observation, why Jupiter appears to
have a larger progression and retrogression than Saturn, and smaller
than Mars, and again why Venus has larger ones than Mercury; why such a
doubling back appears more frequently in Saturn than in Jupiter, and
still more rarely in Mars and Venus than in Mercury... . All these
phenomena proceed from the same cause, which lies in the motion of the
Earth. De revolutionibus, 1543
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm
Indeed.
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 04:24:13 -0700, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Féachadóir wrote:
Scríobh "Luke" <salahoona@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
oriel36 wrote:
So,reading beautiful books about Newgrange is not the same as actually
working through the technical feat which registers the annual cycle at
the point of the greatest daylight/darkness asymmetry.Miore
importantly,Newgrange teaches the counter-productive nature of modern
celestial sphere astrology which takes the name of 'astronomy'.
Before you get too carried away with the notion that Newgrange tells
the midwinter sunrise "exactly", you might have a look at precession -
the position of sunrise will have altered since it was built. It's a
At midwinter, the first rays of the sun enter the chamber, crawl along
the floor, and stop a few feet before the back wall. Do some of that
Newtonian maths that upsets oriel so much, and you discover that 5000
years ago the angle of the sunrise would have meant the first rays
would have illuminated the back wall.
Cool or what?
Newtonian math do not upset me,the fact that his false astronomical
conceptions
Which false astronomical conceptions?
Be specific.
Planetary orbital motion around the Sun is seen directly,this is the
whole point behind the Copernican heliocentric system. Empiricists
following Newton never made this far and build their ideas that
planetary orbital motion is not seen from the Earth.
Copernicus acted like he was also an Empiricist. Just so I'm sure that
we're both talking about the same then when you say 'empiricist'
please have a look at the following link and comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
It was a sly maneuver and the entire Western astronomical achievement withers
under the Newtonian mutation -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton
How could there be any political goal derived from giving a particular
mathematical derivation of the gravitational force acting between two
gravitationally attracting objects right or wrong?
are now dominant and proving an extreme obstacle to
appreciating of the reasoning behind Copernican heliocentricity
How so?
Your intellectual level does not even rise to recognising the most
fundamental correlation of all, the pace of a clock hand in sync with
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour.
I grasp the concept...but so?
Newton's next step was to create
the idea that the Earth around the Sun was equivalent to the Sun around
the Earth thereby utterly destroying the reasoning by which Copernicus
and later astronomers placed the Earth's orbit between Venus and Mars.
Ah I get you now...you've misunderstood Newtonian mechanics unless
you're going on about, what I would call, multiple gravitational
bodies and the calculation of the forces.
The forces between Earth and the Sun are in balance...for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction...
That one statement, to me, covers so much of the realm of natural
philosophy all the way to engineering...
Are you denying that?
If so what is your alternative?
So what indeed !, not just Copernicus but Galileo and Kepler recognisedand the productive avenues for climatological and geological purposes is what
is irritating .
What 'productive avenues'?
The following time lapse footage of the motion of Saturn and Jupiter
over a year shows the faster Earth overtaking the slower planets in
our and their common orbit around the Sun. Anyone who goes around a
traffic roundabout will see the same thing as slower cars in an outer
lane will appear to fall behind as your car overtakes them
Yeah, so what?
that heliocentricity can be derived in no other way ,a cursory glance
at the statements from the website demonstrate that some understood the
reasoning more than others. but effectively planetary heliocentric
motion is seen directly from Earth.
Yes....so?
It was Newton who came up with a catastrophic alternative view that
undid not just the reasoning behind the original Copernican insight
False.
but the heliocentric link to Ptolemaic astronomies.
Also false.
In short,Newton created a convoluted mess disguised under linguistic
junk.
Excuse me?
Actually, its a remarkably simple relationship...is there anything on
the following link that you disagree with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_classical_mechanics
or
G = F (m1 + m2)/r^2 ?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
This is how Copernicus presented the reason for the Earth's motion and
how the motion of the planets around the Sun is seen directly from
Earth. Anyone with a little intuitive intelligence would grasp it
immediately.
Ergo, if you disagree you are, by definition, unintelligent. Well...I
can see you winning awards for your reasoning skills...not!
I do not care if you disagree,
So why are you putting forth propositions in favour of it then?
this is about affirming that Copernicus
reasoning was correct as opposed to the antecedent Ptolemaic view.
Of course...no-one here is arguing that.
Now you come to the Newtonian mutation which suggests that planetary
heliocentric motion is not seen directly from Earth in direct
contradiction of the greatest Western achievement in astronomical
matters - the Copernican insight.
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton
Generation after generation of people have been indoctrinated into the
belief that mathematicians understand astronomy and that Newton was an
extension of the great astronomical tradition of Copernicus and
Kepler.When his conceptions are inspected in closer detail huge cracks
appear and with modern imaging and technology such as the time lapse
footage above,it becomes easier to show just how awful those Newtonian
conceptions are.
You still haven't explained your justification for your claim.
Those same conceptions allowed humanity to discover Pluto, Xena,
Neptune...
Again,this is very,very important.
You're going to have to explain, in detail exactly what you mean and
please present mathematical arguments that support your claim. While
you're at it you're going to have to demonstrate how your ideas stand
up in light of the predictive and explicative value of Newtonian
Mechanics that explained and predicted the discoveries of Pluto, Xena,
and Neptune...
I look forward to that.
PPCB
Again,people may simply refuse to believe that empiricists cannot even
get the value for the Earth's axial rotation on its axis right
Again, are we speaking about the same thing when you say empiricist?
It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all
hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the
natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning,
intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be
methodologically empirical in nature.
Are you disputing this?
much less the more intricate and exquisite reasoning that goes into
heliocentric astronomy.What people will notice from the time lapse
footage of the motion of Jupiter and Saturn is how easy it is to see
the Earth overtaking the slower outer planets by treating the Earth's
orbital motion in isolation.Likewise treating the Earth's axial
rotation in isolation generates the equivalency of axial rotation at 15
degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.
Your entire empirical edifice,including the early 20th century exotic
extensions are all built on celestial sphere geometry.The Irish do not
normally accept such ridiculous precepts as the ones which are
indoctrinated into their children that Newton and his agenda is a
complimentary extension of the original reasoning of Copernicus and
Kepler.
Now I know you're talking crap.
It is nothing but a lousy,pretensious mess and a source of much
suffering.Kids that would normally exercise their intuitive abilities
in astronomy are being blocked from appreciating the actual
astronomical insights
Blocked? They'd be lucky to see a telescope frequently enough to note
anything specific pertaining to retrograde movement of other planets
from the viewing perspective of an earth bound astronomer.
by the dull and dreary empiricists
'Dull and dreary'? Now I *really* know that you're talking out your
arse.
Personality type plays no part in the rightness or wrongness of
scientific statements made by any given member of the scientific
community.
who hijack the original reasoning and direct it towards spurious ends such as
relativity and other such junk.
Relativistic effects have been observed in real time. Identical atomic
clocks, one staying on earth, the other going up in a v.fast jet
flying around for a while and then touching down has verified
relativistic time dilation...
On what basis do you reject Einsteinian relativity?
PPCB
.
- Prev by Date: Re: another man of hate spews his diatribe
- Next by Date: Bananas
- Previous by thread: some people
- Next by thread: Bananas
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
