Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:

It's like Rene Descartes proposed; the universe is comprised of
multitudes of spiral worls and/or vortexes; but theoretical physicists
within their closed comfortable clique will not even consider such a
pretentious idea; they don't want to make waves that might rock the
gravy boat:

It's far better to continue getting government grants to study present
ideas which are leading to nowhere, but to _more_ study, than to
accept something they consider is "passay''; that might bring about no
further need for study.

Shead dcshead@charter,net

Donald G. Shead wrote:
Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:

Oooh, good. Epicycles, anyone?

It's like Rene Descartes proposed; the universe is comprised of
multitudes of spiral worls and/or vortexes;

No, Shead. That's the inside of your head. It's a swirling vortex of
porridge.

It's far better to continue getting government grants to study present
ideas which are leading to nowhere

Good point. It is well known that no space probe has ever reached its
destination, relying as they do on such grotesquely flawed mathematical
models. And satellites - well, if they ever manage to get one of those
to stay in orbit, I'll eat my hat.

but to _more_ study, than to
accept something they consider is "passay''; that might bring about no
further need for study.

"Passay"? Your command of the French language competes with your mastery
of the physical sciences. I am truly impressed. No further need for
study? Well, that's right. All they need to do is ask you. You cracked
the mass/weight dichotomy that had eluded some of the finest scientific
minds for centuries, and now the ultimate understanding of the Universe
is within your reach.

I shall alert the Nobel committee.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:

It's like Rene Descartes proposed...

Damasio, Antonio R
"Descartes' Error"
New York Putnam, c1994, QP401 .D2 1994, 153.4/3 20, ISBN 0399138943 (acid-free)

In article ,
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:

Orbits are not spirals. Spirals continuously increase or decrease in
distance from the center. Orbits precess, due to the gravitational
perturbations of other planets. But despite that, they're very nearly
ellipses, and in a two-body system would be ellipses.


It's like Rene Descartes proposed; the universe is comprised of
multitudes of spiral worls and/or vortexes; but theoretical physicists
within their closed comfortable clique will not even consider such a
pretentious idea; they don't want to make waves that might rock the
gravy boat:

Descartes' swirling vortices *were* taken seriously, about 400 years ago.
After Newton published his Principia, it actually took a few decades to
show that Newton's theory was superior to Descartes' aetherial vortices
pushing planets in their orbits like corks in a whirlpool. Today we have
much more direct evidence when we can launch things into space and they
don't have to orbit in the plane of the planets, or in the same direction
as the planets.

Descartes also said thunder was caused by clouds running into each other,
striking each other like big rocks.


It's far better to continue getting government grants to study present
ideas which are leading to nowhere, but to _more_ study, than to
accept something they consider is "passay''; that might bring about no
further need for study.

Shead dcshead@charter,net

Modern scientists feel a need to reconcile their theories with
observation, and to make observations that test their theories. It's
wasteful, I know. But they want theories that do a better job of
describing things that happen.

--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"Pyriform" wrote in message ...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Cut
It's far better to continue getting government grants to study present
ideas which are leading to nowhere
cut
but to _more_ study, than to
accept something they consider is "passay''; that might bring about no
further need for study.
cut
I am truly impressed. No further need for
study? Well, that's right. All they need to do is ask you. You cracked
the mass/weight dichotomy that had eluded some of the finest scientific
minds for centuries, and now the ultimate understanding of the Universe
is within your reach.

It's within your reach too if you'll just use a little logical common
sense, and realize that Newton was not the genious he was made out to
be; he was mistaken about several things: Orbits are not elliptical;
not _Ptolemaic_ epicycles either, but are spiral whorling vortexes.
The rate of free fall is not 32'/sec^2; but 16'/sec^2; as Galileo had
already discovered.

Newton should have, and we can, see that water in a spinning bucket
gradually takes on spin through friction with the bucket; so that in
"fleeing" from the constraints of the bucket, the center fleeing force
of the spinning water causes it to pile up against the sides: Instead
we choose to look at it as if the whole universe is spinning around
the bucket and attracting the water to the sides of the bucket. OR as
some do, consider the sides of the bucket to be infinitely thick.

It takes a professional student who couldn't fathom centrifugal motion
and it's resultant centrifugal force; who ruined his father and his
father's music business to come up with lulu ideas like that, and two
dimensional beings yet, who couldn't see beyond each other or there
own noses if they could have had them too.

Do you know that relativistic thought experiments require "frame
jumping"?

Shead

Wow, dumb Donny ****head is up to his no-good antics once again I see!

So if there is some radical new idea (that is right) that some genius
can understand, but none of the other physicists can understand it,
they should all just jump onto the idea without convincing themselves
in a manner that makes it possible to demonstrate or at least
explain/prove it theoretically to the rest of the world? Yeah that
makes a lot of sense. I think you've been thinking a little too hard
Donny ****head.. I think you may have busted a synapse somewhere.

Planetary orbits ARE elliptical. Just because you can come up with
some stupid spiral analogy by equating their tangentially escaping
velocities with their gravitational sun-self epicenters doesn't mean
the upshot isn't still an ellipse. It is. That won't change. Not
for me, not for Descarte who has nothing to do with it, and not for
Dumb little Donny ****head.

Wow what an idiot.. Basically you could say this about anything. Any
circle isn't really a circle.. it's a spiral that never closes in.
Everything's spirals now ladies and gentlemen. Even squares. Didn't
you know? Just listen to Donny ****head. A square is actually a
spiral that shoots in a straight line then abruptly changes to a 90
degree angle. But it's actually less than 90 degrees, cause it's a
spiral.. but luckily it doesn't close in on itself so it's just a
square in the end. But wait sorry. Because of this, it's wrong to
call it a square. It's a spiral!

Donald G. Shead wrote:
I am truly impressed. No further need for
study? Well, that's right. All they need to do is ask you. You
cracked the mass/weight dichotomy that had eluded some of the finest
scientific minds for centuries, and now the ultimate understanding
of the Universe is within your reach.

It's within your reach too if you'll just use a little logical common
sense, and realize that Newton was not the genious he was made out to
be;

Au contraire (I know you're comfortable with French), Newton was every
bit the genius he was made out to be. He was also a cantankerous,
vindictive ******* who you really wouldn't want to get to know socially.

he was mistaken about several things:

Indeed he was. There was all that ridiculous numerology and alchemy, for
a start.

Orbits are not elliptical;

Well, no, actually they are - for 2-body systems. After that, it gets a
bit more tricky. Ever heard of the 3-body problem, Shead? Thought not.
Look it up.

not _Ptolemaic_ epicycles either

Progress!

but are spiral whorling vortexes.

Oh dear. And you started so well.

The rate of free fall is not 32'/sec^2; but 16'/sec^2; as Galileo had
already discovered.

Now this is where it really comes unstuck, Shead. As a crank, you have a
kind of license to babble on about "whoring vortexes" (I hope I got that
right), because there's a certain vagueness about the whole thing; I can
no more prove that the Universe is not full of whoring metaphysical
vortexes than you can prove that there isn't an elephant under my desk.

But when you claim that the rate of free fall is 16'/sec^2, any damned
schoolkid can prove you wrong. And they do, daily.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:

Do you mean they form a helix ? - because the CoG of the Solar system is
itself translating through space and therefore there is no return to the
same position with respect to the centre of the galaxy. . .

Or do you really mean the rubbish you actually wrote?

OG wrote:

Do you mean they form a helix ? - because the CoG of the Solar system is
itself translating through space and therefore there is no return to the
same position with respect to the centre of the galaxy. . .

The orbits of planets about the sun form a kind of rosette which does
not close. This is true for both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation.

Bob Kolker

OG wrote:

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...

Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:


Do you mean they form a helix ? - because the CoG of the Solar system is
itself translating through space and therefore there is no return to the
same position with respect to the centre of the galaxy. . .

Or do you really mean the rubbish you actually wrote?

Not a helix. And it is not rubbish. Read what Newton had to say about
non-closing orbits in -De Motu-. Consult any physics book that deals
with the n-body problem. The only arrangement for which orbits close is
the the 2 body problem.

Bob Kolker