(Oriel36) wrote in message om...
(xxein) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message om...
(xxein) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
"greywolf42" wrote in message om...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
om...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...

{snip higher levels}

We might not agree ALL that much but what is your notion of gravity?
I don't think I have seen it.

My notion of gravity is Maxwell's superfluid aether as the foundation of
a Le Sagian gravitational mechanism. Several derivations can be found
in the book "Pushing Gravity" ("Deriving Newton's Gravitational Law
from a Le Sage Mechanism").

Wonderful!,LeSage is popular with geocentrists the world over .

I'm not a geocentrist, myself.


Aetherists are Newtonian quasi-geocentrists while relativists are
Newtonian homocentrists.

A quasi-geocentrist adheres to the Newtonian framework of mean
Sun/Earth distances via Flamsteed's sidereal determination for
constant axial rotation.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

The error is horrifying for its simplicity rather than complexity as
it is basically a two stage process that begins with Flamsteed's
stellar circumpolar/axial rotational equivalency which was
subsequently morphed by Newton into a geocentric/heliocentric orbital
equivalency.

The only thing stopping men from correcting this obvious error is fear
of looking ridiculous to the general public.The truth of the matter is
that the general population does'nt really care anyway and would
probably be relieved with seeing those contrived notions of the late
19th and early 20th century disappear without much fuss.

Given the enormous amount of observational data that has built up for
a century,I am swamped with incorporating the greater motion of the
solar system around the galactic axis and its effects on planetary
heliocentric motion for the purpose of climatological modelling but
there are hundreds and hundreds of exciting avenues that have yet to
be explored.

xxein: So are you then satisfied that you can trace the origin of
stars and their build-ups within some concept of gravity that is
necessarily real and true instead of a wishful concept?


I am satisfied that I have passed through this newsgroup with a
better appreceation of astronomers and astronomical methods prior to
the Flamsteed/Newtonian astronomical format and insofar as it may be
little consolation that I no longer have to suffer the blustering or
bluffing of those who attempt to reduce observed celestial motion to
terrestial ballistics (Newtonian/relativistic agendas),at least I am
satisfied to have come across the foundations of the errors common to
aetherists and relativists alike.

I am more than willing to give you your co-ordinate system if you can
show that gravity does not cause it to move into a distortion against
the background of a truly empty space in which your precious starfield
still has movement other than an outward expansion.

Some things stand in naked and simple beauty.

Keplerian motion is not just a property of heliocentric orbital motion
but is conditioned by the solar system's galactic orbital motion.Once
seen it is impossible to go back to an isolated solar system and a
Newtonian perspective -

"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."[Principia]

If you are slow to pick up on these things perhaps a quick word is
necessary to clarify why Newtonian ballistics based on an isolated
solar system is extremely limited in scope for explaining heliocentric
orbital motion.


If you accept that the solar system along with the visible local Milky
Way stars are circling the Milky Way axis then you can see
instanteously that Newton is incorrect,if it is necessary to explain
further it would be condescending.

Again,Keplerian motion has its roots in dual orbital motions,the Earth
around the Sun and the Earth and Sun around the galactic axis.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Variations in the solar system's galactic orbital motion generate
planetary heliocentric motions to be more circular as the solar system
moves periodically to an inner galactic orbital path and more
elliptical when it moves periodically to an outer galactic path.

Forget Newtonian ballistics !,it was fine for its era but it now can
only be a conceptual and perceptual obstacle in an era when galactic
orbital motion is known and observed.It is incredible that 80 years
have passed and nobody has got round to incorporating the influence
of the solar system's galactic orbital motion on planetary
heliocentric motion,it is not just incredible,it is extremely
embarrasing.

No offense Xxein,some parts of this are simple and others are
complicated and intricate but for all the overheated vocabulary of
relativity/qm,all appear to have adopted the wrong rotation rate for
the Earth's axial rotation in order to give it a compound sidereal
motion.This is not very good for explaining the Earth's motions as
independent motions such as axial rotational,heliocentric orbital or
galactic orbital motions.Again,the error in Newtonian ballistics is
frightening because of its simplicity rather than its complexity.

xxein: I pretty much agree with you already (slang). Damn! I would
have sworn I already posted a reply to this. Oh well. You know the
routine here --- some think a theory is etched in stone, others not.

There is nothing in your reply that would necessitate a response
however just to repeat how the Newtonian error is most notable when
you compare his astronomical framework with Kepler's.

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler


The Newtonian error in the excerpt above is barely discernible
however the only means to acquire mean Sun/Earth distances is to adapt
Flamsteed's axial/stellar rotational equivalency to an
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

Ultimately Newton left a bubble universe for his disciples to follow
and relativistic homocentricity made it worse again in the early
1900's.Somehow it is the easiest thing in the world to recognise where
Newton is clearly wrong in respect to the local Milky Way stars but
it may not be so obvious to recognise where he is wrong in respect to
the influences working the motion of the planets around the Sun and
simultaneously around the galactic axis.


"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."


In any case,this is all astronomical forensics and it is unlikely that
in an atmosphere of relativistic apologetics that men would really
enjoy the exact trajectory of this intellectual disaster we inherited.

Again,the mistake occurs at Newton via Flamsteed,far from being a dull
endeavor it is most enjoyable for anyone who cares to take the journey
and it all begins with clocks,geometry,astronomy and the Longitude
problem.

xxein: I said that I agreed to the difference of measurement
(coordinate system) that might be necessary. I also agreed to a
terminal effect that all gravity is pervasive into each coordinate
system regardless of which. What you do not seem to understand is
that the universe is the GREAT system into which all our beliefs and
scientific explanations must apply. You are not quite there, yet.
Close, maybe.

The point I will try to make is that no one can make a theory without
describing the evolutionary events that would cause it to be so.

(xxein) wrote in message . com...

xxein: the universe is the GREAT system into which all our beliefs and
scientific explanations must apply.
The point I will try to make is that no one can make a theory without
describing the evolutionary events that would cause it to be so.

In 1990 or 4 years before the rings of SN1987A appeared I had worked
out that the stellar collapse process involved a geometric component
of two outer rings and a smaller intersecting central ring,I am
rightly proud of the work even if it now exists only as a personal
achievement.

http://www.pacificnet.net/~sonia/cos...987a-rings.jpg

In short Xxein,there is nothing to indicate that anyone else could
appreceate the work let alone reproduce a comparable work from basic
geometric principles and the idea of effeciency in stellar
evolutionary processes.

The reason for the lack of progress in astronomical matters is that
nobody makes an attempt to seperate processes from ground based
observations or more accurately,nobody is good enough to do so.

BTW,the 1990 work on why rings are part and parcel of the makeup of a
star that tends towards a supoernova condition was copyrighted in that
year.

(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(xxein) wrote in message . com...

xxein: the universe is the GREAT system into which all our beliefs and
scientific explanations must apply.
The point I will try to make is that no one can make a theory without
describing the evolutionary events that would cause it to be so.

In 1990 or 4 years before the rings of SN1987A appeared I had worked
out that the stellar collapse process involved a geometric component
of two outer rings and a smaller intersecting central ring,I am
rightly proud of the work even if it now exists only as a personal
achievement.

http://www.pacificnet.net/~sonia/cos...987a-rings.jpg

In short Xxein,there is nothing to indicate that anyone else could
appreceate the work let alone reproduce a comparable work from basic
geometric principles and the idea of effeciency in stellar
evolutionary processes.

The reason for the lack of progress in astronomical matters is that
nobody makes an attempt to seperate processes from ground based
observations or more accurately,nobody is good enough to do so.

BTW,the 1990 work on why rings are part and parcel of the makeup of a
star that tends towards a supoernova condition was copyrighted in that
year.

xxein: So give me a believable timeline description of star,
accretion disk and supernova. What is the causation of those
(geometric) rings (jpg.)?

Are they a precursor or the first stage remote effects caused by the
central body in scrutiny? Do you wish to make them cause or effect?
Are the rings a blowoff of the accretion disk? Can a supernova be a
multi-stage process?

What is the physical connection between those rings and the supernova
itself?

Just explain it to me as you understand it to yourself.