selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0408250930.395282b2@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Oriel, I could not kid you, because you just came to this thread
> and responded to my post addressed to V.K. Tamhane. ;-)
>

I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton,he did too
much astronomical damage by an unauthorised grafting of the method of
Roemer and finite light distance with Kepler's method for determining
planetary orbital motion.

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."

Optics 1704





 
> As to Faraday's prediction I would mention, Mr Tamhane and me analysed
> some aspects of electromagnetism. Knowing so well Roemer and the time
> of his discoveries, you surely know, no electromagnetic nature of
> light was known then.
>

If you analysed Faraday why do you not analyse where Newton is talking
through his gravitational hat in respect to Roemer's use of the
anomalous motion of Io.You are bogged down in Newton's idiosyncratic
astronomical framework and unable to seperate Roemer's method and
insight from kepler's method and insight.



"Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of the
Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no respect
to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior Satellites is
insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of their
Gravity."

Opticks (1704)

http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html






 
> << Before Maxwell, electromagnetic phenomena were reduced to the
> elementary laws constructed after the example of Newtonian law of
> gravitation. In accordance with these laws, the interaction of
> electric charges, magnetic masses, elementary currents and so on has a
> long-range pattern taking no time to propagate in space >> 

I provided the 1843 excerpt explaining the dilemma faced by men at the
time,they can imagine the Sun attracting the Earth without a medium
but they can't imagine the Sun illunimating the Earth without one.

Newton's cronies conveniently meshed Kepler's planetary laws to look
like Newton's gravitational laws but I doubt very much if anyone here
knows the difference between Kepler's statement and Newton's thrashing
of it.


"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


Sir,I would not expect anyone to untangle the vandalism Newton wrought
by mangling the methods of Roemer and Kepler on Flamsteed's
astronomical framework but from that point onwards,astronomical
modelling is finished.






> 
> While Faraday's letter of 1832 was kept at Royal Society, it was
> opened in 1938 and contained the following text:
> 
> << I came to conclusion that magnetic interaction takes time for its
> propagation, which, probably, will appear quite negligible. I believe
> also that electromagnetic induction propagates exactly in the same
> way. I believe that propagation of magnetic forces from magnetic pole
> is like a vibration of excited water surface. ... By the analogy, I
> think possible to apply the vibration theory to the electric induction
> propagation. >>

Maybe you are not up to speed on recent developments.During an eclipse
a localised disturbance is witnessed on a Foucault's pendulum.As the
Earth is otherwise spinning on its axis normally and orbiting normally
the effect has to be due to some type of electromagnetic shielding as
the Moon intervenes at a localised level.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm

'Gravity' is a fine word for treating planetary motion within an
isolated solar system but not good enough to incorporate the affects
of the motion of the solar system around the galactic axis.In
short,you are back with Keplerian motion with far more accurate
information than the limited data Newton had at his disposal.





> 
> This prediction does not a least belittle the importance of Maxwell's
> discoveries, the more that he fully based on works by Faraday and
> Cavendish and did not know the text of this message, except only he
> could find the draft of this message when reading Faraday's
> manuscripts, or drew his attention that Faraday mentioned electric
> wave in his texts. But the fact that Maxwell has made correct
> conclusions from this mentioning speaks much. Judging by discussions
> in these newsgroups, many today colleagues are unable to understand
> not only prompts but complete and direct proofs. ;-)
>

There is something far better at work today in terms of
electromagnetism and it is near impossible to draw men's attension to
it.

The astronomical history of the Earth in terms of electromagnetism is
embedded in the planet's geological evolution in terms of
paleomagnetic signatures as new crust is formed.To all intents and
purposes paleomagnetic signatures reflect an astronomical DNA of
orbital motion as the record of the astronomical past is not at all
novel and is a matter of course for climatology and geology.

You and your colleague remain stuck in a problem Newton created and
now have very different ideas of the astronomical 'past' than those
which support geology.

 




> The same as to my statement that Maxwell had an incomplete set of
> input data. Should you read attentively this thread before you
> objected, you would see, I spoke that Maxwell had to use the laws for
> stationary fields when constructed his system of equations for dynamic
> field. The aether is a separate issue. But if you want to discuss just
> the aether, you would better begin with the fact that Newton did not
> reject the aether. Read his "Principia" more attentively. In
> particular:
> 
> << Now we should add something about a thinnest aether which
> penetrates through all rough bodies and is contained in them, by whose
> force and action the particles of bodies with rather small distances
> are mutually attracted and clutch when touched, electrisised bodies
> act at large distances, both attracting and repelling the near small
> bodies, the light is emitted, reflected, refracted, deviated, it heats
> bodies, every feeling is excited and makes organs of an animal moving
> after his willing, transmitting just by way of vibrations from the
> exterior organs of feeling to the brain and from the brain to muscles.
> But this cannot be described in short, as well as we have not a
> sufficient stock of experiments with whose help the laws of action of
> this aether would be exactly defined and shoved >> [Principia, in
> Krylov's translation, p. 592 in Russian edition].
> 

Newton wrote that many escape clauses into the Principia that were not
for the slip up with absolute/relative time as the Equation of
Time,you would imagine that he knew what he was talking about.I
would'nt spend another five minutes explaining the difference between
setting the pace of a clock to the rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees to 24 hours exactly and Newton's tinkering to set it to 23
hours 56 min 04 sec.


> Thus, Newton did not reject the aether as a substance, but he had
> grounds to doubt such specific conceptions of the aether as Descartes'
> vortex theory or theory of liquid aether. And this is basically
> important for understanding the essence of processes, how our ideas of
> natural processes develop.
> 

They develop into fabrication when there is nobody courageous enough
to trace the sourse of the problem,unfortunately it is a matter of
reading a different astronomical language than the concepts Newton
based his concepts on.



> In this connection, the failure could not come "later in attributing
> aether back into the Newtonian agenda", as the aether never left this
> agenda. Even Einstein, having rejected the aether when formulated the
> SR postulates, came back to the aether conception in GR, and not
> without reasons. ;-)
> 
> << Actually, if generally the energy is passed from one body to
> another not momentarily but it takes some finite time, then there has
> to exist a medium in which it temporarily exists, having left the
> first body and doing not achieving the second one. So these theories
> have to lead us to the idea of medium in which this propagation occurs
> >> [Maxwell].
> 
> There took place, of course, some inaccuracy and incomplete
> understanding in Newton's work, but we should accuse of them not so
> much Newton as the next generations of astronomers who did not finish
> his conception but "have lain down on the shoulders of giants". ;-)
> And when I in my post told that all attempts to revise Newton's laws
> gave no result, I told it of mechanical, not gravitational laws. While
> Newton's gravitational laws still are unrevised, too, even with all
> loud claims of Relativity supporters. We have to remember that after
> all attempts Einstein and Grossmann defined their results as follows:
> 
> << However, in particular case of infinitely weak static field of
> gravity this tensor _does not reduce_ to Delta phi. So the question
> still remains, how far the problem of gravity field equations is
> linked in general theory of differential tensors connected with
> gravity field. Such linkage would have to exist, should the gravity
> field equations allow arbitrary transformations; however in this case,
> apparently, it is absolutely impossible to confine ourselves to the
> second-order differential equations. On the contrary, should it appear
> that the gravity field equations allow only one definite group of
> transformations, the possibility to avoid differential tensors yielded
> in general theory would become obvious. As we showed in physical part
> of this work, we still cannot provide an unambiguous solution of this
> problem. >> [Einstein and Grossmann. Project of generalised Relativity
> and gravitational theory].
> 
> I would mark here, neither Einstein nor Nordstrom achieved more
> accuracy in describing processes that Newton's gravity law described,
> and the basic Einstein's equation was not something other than
> Newton's law in tensor appearance. Seeking the generalised Poisson
> equation in tensor form, Einstein and Grossmann came to conclusion
> that
> 
> << To solve this problem, we have not found the method which would be
> the same natural as in case of previous problem (finding the
> energy/pulse for material phenomena - mechanical, electrical and
> others - S.K.). We had to introduce some far from obvious, though
> probable admissions. . . . In accordance with Newton - Poisson law it
> looks sensible (?! - S.K.) to require, these equations to have the
> _second_ order. But we have to object, this supposition disables us to
> find the differential equation being the generalisation for Delta phi
> which would be _tensor_ as to the _arbitrary_ transformations. . . .
> Though we have to emphasise, we have no grounds for general covariance
> of gravity equations. >> [ibidem].
> 
> We from our side, in our study, have solved one of fundamental
> problems which Newton raised in his letter to Bentley of 10 December
> 1692:
> 
> << It seems to me, should all the substance of Sun and planets and
> generally all substance of the universe be evenly distributed in the
> sky, and each particle should have an innate gravity to all others,
> and should all the space in which the substance is distributed were
> finite (as in Big Band conception - S.K.), the substance from the
> outskirts of this space, due to gravity, would tend to the substance
> in the centre and would achieve it, due to which it would create one
> huge mass >> [Correspondence of Sir Issak Newton. Cambridge, 1968,
> Vol. 3, No 398].
>

If you had'nt noticed,these things showed up in 1923 -

http://www.eso.org/outreach/epr/posters/images/poster-ngc2997-normal.jpg

Don't you think it is time to rework this observation of solar system
rotation about the galactic axis into planetary orbital heliocentric
motion.


 
> We proved that stars and galaxies being heated bodies repel each other
> in proportion to their temperature (and temperature of bodies of which
> they consist). And only colleagues' unwilling to see the essence and
> the colleagues' method which F. Bacon criticised in his "New Organon"
> caused that you also do not operate with this fact and do not base on
> it in our dialogue:
> 
> << Stating his new methodological ideas, F. Bacon thought the first
> basic shortcoming of many philosophers' approach to the analysis of
> cognition that they drew their main attention to words, not to
> actions, and instead systematic investigation of studied phenomenon
> "pursued the words and their euphony". The second distortion, already
> of the essence of science, Bacon thought "excessive contrivance in the
> controversy", leading to unnecessary altercations, which gained
> "especial dissemination amongst many scholiasts having available much
> free time, endowed with keen mind, but too little reading" >> [K.H.
> Delokarov. Philosophical and methodological basis of Principia by
> Isaak Newton. In: Newton and philosophical problems of 20th century
> (Russian)]
>

Basically,guess until your heart is content,remove all doubts and
'certainty ' is left for such is the empirical end.Unfortunately the
process of ideas become more important than the natural cosmological
and geological processes which are relegated as a means to an end.

None of you love nature and it shows.


 
> << In Bacon's opinion, harmony in "Mind and Things" can be achieved
> only, when we succeed to clear our mind of pre-opinion. For it, "we
> have to direct our steps along the guiding thread and, using a
> definite rule, to secure all our path, beginning with the first
> perception of our feelings". To clear our mind and to make it
> unbiased, Bacon gave a well-known criticism of four kinds of "ghosts",
> or "idols", who impede our true cognition, which played a positive
> part in establishment and development of science. . . . Standing up
> for empirical approach to the nature, proving the necessity of
> experiments and experience for testing the nature, Bacon did not stop,
> having simply indicated the importance of experience, he also
> addressed efforts to clear up the typology of forms of experience by
> their functions during the cognition process. . . . Thus, Popper is
> not correct when calling F. Bacon scholiast who have established the
> "myth of induction". The main C. Popper's mistake was that his work
> was anti-historical, and this caused him to negate the positive part
> of experimental method and inductive methodology >> [ibidem].
> 
> The approaches which you use in composing your anti-theses to those
> mine, are just the reflection of scholastic attempts to disregard the
> classical authors of philosophical methodology of classical physics,
> and I already showed you this in the above citations. Both in the
> history of science and in mathematics, it is so easy to pull out a few
> outwardly insignificant expressions, to joint phrases in improper
> manner or accuse the author that he did not know what was discovered
> on the basis of his results many decades after (and which could not be
> obtained without this author's discoveries). So one can compose an
> opposite impression, just as Popper accused Bacon of things against
> which Bacon struggled. We see this trend in today scientists of
> Relativity who are the followers of scholastic interpretation of
> cognition, and who state that mathematics without phenomenology and
> almost without experiments will well work and fully describe the
> nature, that experiment is of no importance to clear up the truth,
> that a phenomenon can be equally described with several basically
> different conceptions and we can prefer no one. This is what Feynman
> stated in his lectures. Anyway, this is so in the context in which I
> wrote to Mr Tamhane.
>

Namedropping cannot be considered an achievement and especially in the
struggle to set one idea against another.It may be impossible to
seperate ideas such as the distinction between Roemer's insight and
Kepler's when you have inherited an agenda that all too willingly
combines them but this was the argument over ideas in 1843.



 
> We can see the above described not only as concerns Newton. You can
> take any theory, not only in physics, and you will see clear signs of
> stagnation caused just by dogmatism of scholiasts who "have lain down
> on the shoulders of giants". And we have to address first of all to
> them your following phrase:
>

Newton was not standing on the shoulder of a giant,he was taking
flight on the back of a common astronomical crow - the cataloguer
Flamsteed.

 
> << Mathematics in the wrong hands burns all ahead of
> it and nobody but nobody will ever say otherwise even when it is
> advantageous to leave astronomical concerns aside. >>
> 
> Just with these your words you contradict yourself, calling Bacon's
> opinion out of date. I already wrote here, only permanent and
> scrupulous, and the main, unbiased correction of mathematical model by
> experimental results can provide a correct description of physical
> phenomenon.
>

No objection,the agenda is set for you and not by you,you swallowed
the history of that agenda wholesale be it Newton's,relativity or qm
and you will mutter something about the 'laws of physics' and the
progress of ideas.

Have a good look around,you have a tower of Babel on your hands.


 
> In this view, it can be of more help to watch the floating straw than
> to dive for pearls, doing not knowing the bottom. One can find no
> pearls but occasionally can break his neck against the stones. I can
> tell you this quite definitively, having successfully carried out a
> number of fundamental experiments and solved centurial
> phenomenological and mathematical problems, of which you can read in
> four volumes of our e-journal. The same, not abstractly I told of
> indivisible triad of cognition "phenomenology - experiment -
> mathematical modelling". I can repeat, namely negation that the
> process of cognition is sequential has led Relativity, quantum theory
> and modern astronomy to the perfect absurdity. And this is not
> Newton's guilt but of the people who cannot attentively read and
> thoughtfully analyse. Newton at the level of knowledge of his century
> and at the level of available experimental facts made his utmost.

Read Newton and an opportunist emerges,a well supported opportunist I
might add.Look what he has wrought,men too afraid to make a
mistake,consensual intimidation,the ability to turn perfectly good
observations to definitional mush.


 And
> in limits of boundaries which he marked (for gravitation he confined
> himself to the steady motion of planets), he is impeccable, and I
> would wish so to many my today colleagues trying to fantasy the
> nature. And if you are speaking of pearls, one pearl in a jewellery
> made by a skilled artist is worthier than tons of shells in which
> pearl could happen to appear. ;-)

Not at all,anyone who determines a heliocentric/geocentric orbital
equivalency like Newton did can't read astronomical language.Must have
been great when all that existed was a celestial sphere and nothing to
challenge it but the dumbing down of astronomy to mathematical
descriptions that do not require translations hands you the legacy
where you can say what you want.



> 
> Sergey> 
> > I reason that if no astronomer was present in Newton's era to correct
> > the manner in which Newton formatted his gravitational agenda by
> > unauthorised use of two incompatible astronomical  views,I have no
> > reason to believe that it could be achieved in the present
> > climate.Astronomers previous to Flamsteed calculated orbits of planets
> > against the motion of the Earth,after Flamsteed it amounted to
> > calculating them against the background stars with Newton fudging as
> > much as possible by way of combining Roemer and Kepler seperate but
> > overlaping insights.