Re: E=mc2
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Aug 2006 10:36:21 -0700
Tim Cutts wrote:
In article <1153859539.572615.73130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
oriel36 <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One guy at a keyboard clinically demolishing the Newtonian junk with
ease and satisfaction.The better part is presenting the new and
exciting productive avenues while you polish your mirrors and do little
else.
Except, you've never done any such thing. All you do is repeat the same
assertions, in an extremely long-winded and obtuse manner. You provide
no evidence or references. If you wish people to understand, and
possibly be convinced by, your arguments, they should:
I will write this one more time,not to convince you but to present the
original reasoning for the Earth's orbital motion between Venus and
Mars.
Observed planetary motion is seen to move in one direction against the
stellar background,it will appear to periodically stop and go
backwards against the stellar background and then move forward
again.Copernicus resolved this observation by presenting that an
orbitally moving Earth would generate the effect by overtaking the
slower moving outer planets hence planetary heliocentric motion is seen
directly from Earth,I repeat,is seen directly from an orbitally moving
Earth. -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
"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 COPERNICUS
Now,if you feel a particular need to reject the original Copernican
reasoning based on a moving Earth for the Newtonian mutation which
proposes that heliocentric motion is only seen directly from the Sun
and his ignorant suggestion that retrogrades are seen from Earth ( the
correct statement is that retrogrades are seen against a stellar
background) then good for you.
* 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
This is not a matter of finding Newton wrong,this is a matter of
restoring accurate astronomical working principles for productive
avenues in climatology ,geology and multiple other avenues.If you feel
a burning desire to prop up a conceptual Newtonian corpse then good for
you but the stink of it is beginning to tell in an era which cannot
afford the silly junk which it generated.
If you can't tell the difference between the Copernican reasoning and
the Newtonian mutation then you cannot be helped.I assure you that as a
newsworthy item it supersedes anything seen today by many degrees of
magnitude considering how the whole thing has snowballed into an
intellectual and intuitive nadir
1) be concise.
2) be in plain English. It's a common trick with weak arguments to
dress them up in complex and verbose language to make them seem more
impressive than they are. Politicians use this all the time, as I'm
sure you are aware.
3) contain references to published works, or experimental results.
Otherwise, all that we have are baseless assertions and personal opinions.
4) not contain emotive or derogatory references to those that do not
agree with you (and that goes for your opponents on this list too - some
unsavoury labels have been slung your way, and that's not on either)
Merely repeating yourself doesn't achieve anything. It irritates most
of the people on this list, and probably just makes you even more worked
up.
Tim
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: E=mc2
- Next by Date: Re: First telescope
- Previous by thread: Re: E=mc2
- Next by thread: Re: E=mc2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
