"greywolf42" wrote in message news:...
"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...


Is it possible to find the original experimental data somewhere, or
maybe
just a summary ?

Michelson's paper may be found at:
American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol XXXIV No. 203 ( November,
1887) pp 333-345

I forgot to include the primary citation to Miller's work:

"The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of
the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5(2), p.203-242, July 1933.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
"greywolf42" wrote in message news:...
"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...


Is it possible to find the original experimental data somewhere, or
maybe
just a summary ?

Michelson's paper may be found at:
American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol XXXIV No. 203 ( November,
1887) pp 333-345

I forgot to include the primary citation to Miller's work:

"The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of
the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5(2), p.203-242, July 1933.

xxein: Where have you been?

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

What is a Lorentz gravity?

"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message news:...
"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...


Is it possible to find the original experimental data somewhere, or
maybe just a summary ?

Michelson's paper may be found at:
American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol XXXIV No. 203 (
November, 1887) pp 333-345

I forgot to include the primary citation to Miller's work:

"The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion
of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5(2), p.203-242, July
1933.

xxein: Where have you been?

I've been hanging around. There haven't been too many threads in which I've
been interested. And not too many egregious lies to counter.

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").

What is a Lorentz gravity?

I'm not familiar with the term. Upon using a google search, I find that you
are the only one who has used the phrase on the newsgroups.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message om...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message news:...
"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...


Is it possible to find the original experimental data somewhere, or
maybe just a summary ?

Michelson's paper may be found at:
American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol XXXIV No. 203 (
November, 1887) pp 333-345

I forgot to include the primary citation to Miller's work:

"The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion
of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5(2), p.203-242, July
1933.

xxein: Where have you been?

I've been hanging around. There haven't been too many threads in which I've
been interested. And not too many egregious lies to counter.

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 .

"LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the
dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who prefer
basing their position on general relativity."

http://www.geocentricity.com/rebuttal.htm

Do you realise that all these theories were destined to become
bankrupt because of one simple and single error that Newton created
in adopting the wrong value for the axial rotation of the Earth,it is
true that the error is not immediately apparent but it is there
nonetheless as a secondary derived concept via Flamsteed involving a
transfer of axial rotational coordinates to orbital coordinates.

There must be some perverted satisfaction mathematicians and
theorists get from making much out of the Newtonian view which,in any
case, was wrong to begin with.People who have no way of defending
themselves are subject to the conceptual onslaught that originated
from a poorly constructed ballistic theory,a theory where planets move
within stellar circumpolar motion rather than against the background
stars (Kepler's Panis Quadragesilima).

I am proud that I have had to learn my astronomical trade in an
atmosphere dominated by theorists who did everything they possible
could for the last 3 centuries to undermine the ability to make those
intricate translations from the illusions we receive from our Earth
based observations into actual motions of planets and stars.Normally
theorists would work along with astronomers in order to maintain a
self-correcting mechanism but unfortunately theorists mistook
cataloguers (Flamsteed,Bradley) for astronomers (Copernicus,Roemer)
hence the contemporary astronomical mess.

An easy way for a theorist to know the difference between a
cataloguer and an astronomer.

A cataloguer will look at the following image as 'sunrise' while an
astronomer will determine that it is the Earth rotating out of its own
orbital shadow.


http://www.quietcity.org/img/pix/sunrise_3.jpg

A cataloguer will then determine that the Sun orbiting the Earth is
the same as the Earth orbiting Sun while an astronomer moves on from
the first axial rotational principle and determines the changing
orbital orientation of the Earth over an annual orbital cycle.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Subsequently all 'astronomers' today are really cataloguers or little
more than astronomical 'stamp collectors'.The diluted form of
astronomer/cataloguer going back to Halley/Newton is little more than
an image collecting lapdog for theorist and quite incapable of
correcting the theorist in astronomical matters whereas a true
astronomer can and does.A real astronomer is good for a theorist and
visa versa but a theorist working without the self-correcting
mechanism of an astronomer is a disaster as the last 100 years have
proved.

In conclusion,as you are merely a mathematical theorist you are
excused and besides you probably have'nt the faintest idea what I am
talking about whereas there exists men who can perfectly understand
that mathematical theory cannot be pasted directly on to observation
and require the services of real astronomers in making necessary
translations from Earth based observations into actual motions.












What is a Lorentz gravity?

I'm not familiar with the term. Upon using a google search, I find that you
are the only one who has used the phrase on the newsgroups.

"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.

"LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the
dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who prefer
basing their position on general relativity."

http://www.geocentricity.com/rebuttal.htm

Do you realise that all these theories were destined to become
bankrupt because of one simple and single error that Newton created
in adopting the wrong value for the axial rotation of the Earth,it is
true that the error is not immediately apparent but it is there
nonetheless as a secondary derived concept via Flamsteed involving a
transfer of axial rotational coordinates to orbital coordinates.

There must be some perverted satisfaction mathematicians and
theorists get from making much out of the Newtonian view which,in any
case, was wrong to begin with.People who have no way of defending
themselves are subject to the conceptual onslaught that originated
from a poorly constructed ballistic theory,a theory where planets move
within stellar circumpolar motion rather than against the background
stars (Kepler's Panis Quadragesilima).

I am proud that I have had to learn my astronomical trade in an
atmosphere dominated by theorists who did everything they possible
could for the last 3 centuries to undermine the ability to make those
intricate translations from the illusions we receive from our Earth
based observations into actual motions of planets and stars.Normally
theorists would work along with astronomers in order to maintain a
self-correcting mechanism but unfortunately theorists mistook
cataloguers (Flamsteed,Bradley) for astronomers (Copernicus,Roemer)
hence the contemporary astronomical mess.

An easy way for a theorist to know the difference between a
cataloguer and an astronomer.

A cataloguer will look at the following image as 'sunrise' while an
astronomer will determine that it is the Earth rotating out of its own
orbital shadow.


http://www.quietcity.org/img/pix/sunrise_3.jpg

A cataloguer will then determine that the Sun orbiting the Earth is
the same as the Earth orbiting Sun while an astronomer moves on from
the first axial rotational principle and determines the changing
orbital orientation of the Earth over an annual orbital cycle.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Subsequently all 'astronomers' today are really cataloguers or little
more than astronomical 'stamp collectors'.The diluted form of
astronomer/cataloguer going back to Halley/Newton is little more than
an image collecting lapdog for theorist and quite incapable of
correcting the theorist in astronomical matters whereas a true
astronomer can and does.A real astronomer is good for a theorist and
visa versa but a theorist working without the self-correcting
mechanism of an astronomer is a disaster as the last 100 years have
proved.

In conclusion,as you are merely a mathematical theorist you are
excused

Whatever gave you that idea?

and besides you probably have'nt the faintest idea what I am
talking about whereas there exists men who can perfectly understand
that mathematical theory cannot be pasted directly on to observation
and require the services of real astronomers in making necessary
translations from Earth based observations into actual motions.

I'm well aware of the complexities and potential failings and uncertainties
in determining astronomical motions from Earth-based observatories, thank
you.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"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.











"LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the
dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who prefer
basing their position on general relativity."

http://www.geocentricity.com/rebuttal.htm

Do you realise that all these theories were destined to become
bankrupt because of one simple and single error that Newton created
in adopting the wrong value for the axial rotation of the Earth,it is
true that the error is not immediately apparent but it is there
nonetheless as a secondary derived concept via Flamsteed involving a
transfer of axial rotational coordinates to orbital coordinates.

There must be some perverted satisfaction mathematicians and
theorists get from making much out of the Newtonian view which,in any
case, was wrong to begin with.People who have no way of defending
themselves are subject to the conceptual onslaught that originated
from a poorly constructed ballistic theory,a theory where planets move
within stellar circumpolar motion rather than against the background
stars (Kepler's Panis Quadragesilima).

I am proud that I have had to learn my astronomical trade in an
atmosphere dominated by theorists who did everything they possible
could for the last 3 centuries to undermine the ability to make those
intricate translations from the illusions we receive from our Earth
based observations into actual motions of planets and stars.Normally
theorists would work along with astronomers in order to maintain a
self-correcting mechanism but unfortunately theorists mistook
cataloguers (Flamsteed,Bradley) for astronomers (Copernicus,Roemer)
hence the contemporary astronomical mess.

An easy way for a theorist to know the difference between a
cataloguer and an astronomer.

A cataloguer will look at the following image as 'sunrise' while an
astronomer will determine that it is the Earth rotating out of its own
orbital shadow.


http://www.quietcity.org/img/pix/sunrise_3.jpg

A cataloguer will then determine that the Sun orbiting the Earth is
the same as the Earth orbiting Sun while an astronomer moves on from
the first axial rotational principle and determines the changing
orbital orientation of the Earth over an annual orbital cycle.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Subsequently all 'astronomers' today are really cataloguers or little
more than astronomical 'stamp collectors'.The diluted form of
astronomer/cataloguer going back to Halley/Newton is little more than
an image collecting lapdog for theorist and quite incapable of
correcting the theorist in astronomical matters whereas a true
astronomer can and does.A real astronomer is good for a theorist and
visa versa but a theorist working without the self-correcting
mechanism of an astronomer is a disaster as the last 100 years have
proved.

In conclusion,as you are merely a mathematical theorist you are
excused

Whatever gave you that idea?

and besides you probably have'nt the faintest idea what I am
talking about whereas there exists men who can perfectly understand
that mathematical theory cannot be pasted directly on to observation
and require the services of real astronomers in making necessary
translations from Earth based observations into actual motions.

I'm well aware of the complexities and potential failings and uncertainties
in determining astronomical motions from Earth-based observatories, thank
you.

(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 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.

(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.

(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.

(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.