Re: The theory of relativity

There may be one single person who is ashamed that the exquisite and
intricate Western astronomical tradition was destroyed,at least
temporarily,by the weak and careless reasoning that seen the rise of
the empirical cult.It is not a plea to anyone in particular,the
intuitive faculties which affirm the astronomical material are a facet
of the greater intuitive faculties which affirm Christ,Christianity and
its roots.It is not a narrow view for the great civilisations which
stretch back to remote antiquity always left something of their
achievements in their architecture ,art,music,writings and in their
belief systems.

This era is marked by the rise of the Newtonian junk, an exploitation
of an intricate and exquisite geometrical appreciation of Copernican
heliocentricity (now made easy with time lapse images) for a non
geometrical equational treatment.I presented the original material as a
favor,that this is talk.origins or the extreme symptoms of empiricism
is no problem for everyone deserves a chance to improve things.


Kermit wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
borg31de777@xxxxxxxx wrote:
oriel36 ha escrito:

goodrich_ms@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article
<timberwoof.spam-437427.19265108082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <proto-E0734B.14424908082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Walter Bushell <proto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1154966868.259342.311270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dwib" <dwibdwib@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Pertti Koivisto wrote:
I have followed the usenet during various years. Many times here are
presented that there is
physical theory called the theory of the relativity. Many evolutionist
professors and writers use this name
but when I have asked what this theory is all about there is total
silence. The same is with the antropic principle. Can somebody break
the wall of this silence and tell what these words mean.

Am I missing something? What has the Theory of Relativity got to do
with Evolution?

Dwib

Science is one piece, it would be impossible to dispense with the TOE
and keep Relativity or vice versa.

Uh? I don't see any direct connections between the two. Care to
elaborate?

Both of them rely on empirical evidence, and the idea that we can
extract the truth about nature by study. If in either case we let that
presumption fall, I don't see how we can keep up the presumption in the
other field. From a theistic point of view, to abandon this presumption
is to accept that the creator may be lying to us.



Which is a false dichotomy since we could also be lying to ourselves.

M.G.

The poignant and eloquent reminder from the mid 19th century that
something was or went badly wrong stands in sharp contrast to today,of
course the problem eluded these genuine investigators until now when it
is fairly easy to expose the Newtonian mutation to heliocentric
principles and methods.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

They could envisage the Sun attracting the Earth without a medium in
line with what Newton specifically rejected but could not get it to
mesh with a medium bearing light,the later guys who supported the
exotic 1905 concept simply closed their eyes and pretended not to see
and still do.

The 19th century guys did not think they were lying to themselves and
it should still be the same way today however what was once a genuine
dilemma morphed into outright incompetence and insincerity among
theorists and their non geometrical equational treatment of astronomy.

Finally yoy have made your point, after thousands of wasted words. You
think that Astronomy should have stayed in a geometrical form, intead
of joining the growing mathematicization of the rest of sciences.


Anyone you travels on a traffic roundabout and watches cars moving more
slowly in the outer lanes can appreciate the Copernican reasoning as
the other cars fall behind as your car in an inner lane overtakes them.

<gasp> Have you joined the empericist cult?


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The heiocentric version is no different as the Earth overtakes the
slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn in our and their
common orbit around the Sun

Correct so far...


It is difficult to imagine that a group of people emerged that would
deny humanity this exquisite reasoning

That's not reasoning; it's simple observation. You can't reason
*anywhere without data to start with.

but unfortunately this is the
case.The Newtonian version is based on the idea that planetary orbital
motion is not seen directly from Earth -

" 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

Yes. It is easier to visulize and measure that way. Simple and usable
models are always prefered to confusing or unnecessarily complex
models.


Simple indeed !,I do not fault you for adhering to the bogus Newtonian
conception for it looks correct and I will even provide an animated
justification which would appear to support his statement -

http://www.astrosurf.com/astrojul/retro.gif

Now I will provide the actual time lapse footage of heliocentric motion
as seen from Earth -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

By affirming that heliocentric motion is seen directly from Earth by
comprehending the time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn ,the only,I
repeat,the only possible working principle for Copernican
heliocentricity and its later Keplerian\Roemerian refinements is this
-

Against the stellar background the planets appear to move in one
direction ,stop and move backs and then move forwards again.As seen
directly from an orbitally moving Earth,this affirms heliocentricity
for the Earth and all the planets.I will even throw in Galileo's
explanation that the only means to affirm heliocentricity is from an
orbitally moving Earth -



Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]

" Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more
time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde
motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists
in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely
demonstrated by Copernicus . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"














The silly linguistics of relative\absolute space are built around that
destructive mutation hence the exotic 1905 concepts which extend the
Newtonian error.Ultimately,that error is now a complete and utter
nuisance as it prevents the working principles for axial and orbital
motions and their relationship for climatological and geological
purposes.

What "principles" are prevented by any model? When I was in sixth
grade, maybe earlier, it was explained to our average class how the
motion of the Earth and its relationship to the sun created day and
night and the seasons. I'm sorry if it confuses you.

In other words, your clinging to some simplistic geometrical ideal
makes it difficult for you to understand the motions of the Earth and
other planets. Tell me again why I should use a system that the
professionals dropped over 300 years ago?

Because you like circles?


Again,you found your intellectual and intuitive equilibrium among the
creationists so I congratulate you.

No, they prefer models that give them emotional satisfactions (as you
do), and reject data if they don't like their implications (as you do).



A question, do you still believe in the phlogiston theory? After all it
was disproved by mere mathematical arguments. Or maybe you sustain the
aristotelian four elements. After all it was a "brilliant intuition" by
Aristotle, disproved by mere empirical tests.

If Copernicus would be alive today they would be the first to say that
you are of the same "kind" of their enemies, people so buried in dogma
and their own preconceptions, that they couldn't see beyond their own
noses.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nicolaus Copernicus
    ... Yes, Copernicus used titanic calculations. ... infered that the Earth has an orbital motion and this motion simplifies ... Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets. ... applies to those who first encounter Copernican heliocentricity for the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Scientists "reaching" when it comes to "Deep Impact"
    ... heliocentrists,who affirmed his reasoning,would have understood it as ... Anyone today can affirm this by refering to the Earth's orbital motion ... "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, ... heliocentricity without having to introduce a specualtive notion. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Halloween and astronomy
    ... It would be an ideal time to recognise that the orbital motion of Mars ... passes close to the orbital motion of the Earth. ... inferred heliocentricity. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Evening Wanderers
    ... appearance of an impartial observer, because as you say, it is Salviati ... "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... very simple motion of the Earth. ... twisting of lively reasoning towards a half-baked attempt to dilute ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... to isolate axial rotation for the purpose of calibrating their clocks ... who knew how to isolate orbital motion to account for the motion of the ... "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... reasoning that led to both .You cannot justify Flamsteed's reasoning on ...
    (alt.horology)