Re: AU other than Astronomical Units?
- From: oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 28, 5:31 pm, rich...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <c07bb998-aecc-4700-80ac-635131c8c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Petr Beckmann
Ah, Petr Beckmann, who decided that Einsteinian relativity must be
wrong, apparently because it didn't fit with his "objectivist" views.
He proposed what amounted to an entrained ether, but it turned out not
to match reality.
-- Richard
--
:wq
It takes a rare individual to know what Newton was up to with those
definitions of absolute/relative space and time and unfortunately even
genuine mathematical minds never figured out the ins and outs of what
he was talking about.Mach was partly right but Newton's phrasing of
absolute/relative time as the Equation of Time while working of the
solar/sidereal framework of Flamsteed makes it virtually impossible
for an outsider to rresolve -
"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
So, this is what got Mach so upset -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured." Principia
The Equation of Time distinguishes the natural noon cycle from the
human devised 24 hour cycle and from there into terrestrial geometry
therefore there is a geometrical resolution to all this,a proper one
instead of the junk of the last century.
The geometrical framework which Newton worked off is nothing other
than the invention of Flamsteed -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
No wonder Mach was upset but like most mathematicians he had little
understanding of geometrical principles where the 24 hour day is
transfered to the axial cycle as a constant,basically,the 24 hour day
corresponds to no observed cyclical reference.This surfaces when
physicists talk of the Earth speeding up and slowing down by using a
zodiacal framework and using the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds for constant axial rotation.
In retrospect,all these guys running around and proclaiming 'time is
not absolute' looks unintentionally funny for even a brief look at
Newton's definition shows it to be the commonplace but exquiste
difference between the variations in the natural day and the 24 hour
day.Which one would you care to reject !.
As for absolute/relative space,well,that is a different story that
dovetails with absolute/relative time,it is basically a mutation of
Copernican reasoning in the matter of retrogrades and how they are
resolved.I have little interest in the 20th century nonsense and even
if I do pity the loss of so many great minds in attempting to turn
things around,people like Essen and Beckmann,there were not enough of
them and they simply do not have that astronomical talent to reach the
level of Newton and his maneuvering.
The worst thing you can do to a person is feign honesty when promoting
astronomical methods and insights,people expect that even if there are
enormous mistakes that nobody will intentionally deceive another
through feats of intentional confusion unfortunately the Scholium IV
of the Principia corresponds to that unsatisfactory status -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
The point is not to make a scene out of Newton's 17th century
maneuvering and its early 20th century outriggers which followed from
the astrological framework but rather to point out what 21st century
imaging can do.It may be that Kepler's orbital framework indicates a
galactic orbital component where the movement of the central Sun in
its gactic orbital motion may be partly responsible for less than
circular orbits,it is just the briefest glimpse that when Ptolemy
proposed the Equant,Copernicus the epicycle and finally resolved by
irregular orbits and motions of Kepler that they were glimpsing the
barest details of our solar system's galactuic orbital motion.The
problem of a localised solution which Newton provedes speaks for
itself -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton
Relativity is a nuisance and it is not really fit for human
consumption other than it highlights the actual flaws in Newton's
agenda by promoting them rather than obliterating them,even Newton's
maneuverings amount to wasteful junk when compared to what was
correct.In this respect I would have nothing to gain by being sucked
into a relativity perspective that contains the same astrological core
as Newton's work did.
.
- References:
- AU other than Astronomical Units?
- From: Robert
- Re: AU other than Astronomical Units?
- From: oriel36
- Re: AU other than Astronomical Units?
- From: Richard Tobin
- AU other than Astronomical Units?
- Prev by Date: Re: Earth's speed of orbit and distance from the sun - figures required
- Next by Date: Re: Why do earth not Fall on Sun?
- Previous by thread: Re: AU other than Astronomical Units?
- Next by thread: Re: AU other than Astronomical Units?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
