selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0409051042.556b7f80@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Oriel,
> 
> I am pleased at least that I was not kidding you as to Faraday's
> insight. ;-) Now as to Newton, in the light of your words
> 
> >I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton
> 
> I would only mention, it is so easy to reason about past, not so easy
> to look ahead.

Classical mechanics or celestial motion reduced to terrestial
ballistics was formatted with a contrived view that geocentric and
heliocentric orbits are equivalent.This equivalency is the basis for
mean Earth/Sun distances and involves a meshing of axial rotation with
orbital motion as a single sidereal motion.

 http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif

It may not be so easy to look ahead but with the Newtonian view it
becomes impossible and would have been impossible even in his era.




 The problem is not in the trifles of which you are
> trying to re-draw Newton's portrait like an opportunist who steeled
> Kepler's ideas and took "flight on the back of a common astronomical
> crow".

He took flight on the back of an astronomical crow,he determined mean
orbital distances through Flamsteed's erroneous assumption for axial
rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency.The purpose Flamsteed
sought the equivalency was in determining terrestial longitudes by way
of celestial sphere positions,Newton simply switched it to an orbital
equivalency.



 Newton had some other task - to join separate results, and at
> his level of knowledge he has accomplished this task successfully.
> Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, neither Leibnitz
> with his great achievements in differential calculus, nor Kepler who
> has established the laws of planetary orbital motion and whom you are
> so much defending derived the gravity law in the Newton's form - in
> the form of equal gravitational and inertial masses.

Sounds great until it is now realised that orbital variations exist
and cause ice ages which in turn affect geological features and leave
a recorded history of the geological and astronomical history of the
planet.With Newton's mechanical view there is no mechanism for the
change from less elliptical to more elliptical in terms of either mass
or acceleration (insofar as Kepler's second law applies regardless of
the degree of the elliptical motion) notwithstanding that the template
for mean Earth/Sun distances is already wrong.



 None of them has
> formulated in mathematically rigorous form the laws of mechanics which
> even now work fine in all areas of science and engineering. If
> speaking, what Newton used to achieve his aim, we have to mention that
> he took the idea of infinitesimals from his teacher. The first law of
> mechanics - the law of inertia - he took from Galileo, the law of
> equal action and counteraction - from Descartes who took it from
> Aristotle, and so on. Not this is the point. The point is, he gave us
> the FIRST mathematical formulation of laws for mechanics and
> gravitation on whose basis we can calculate and analyse.

This goes to prove my point that behind the supposedly highly
contentious conceptual differences arising from the early 20th
century,all sides will run home to momma and defend Newton.The only
verification worthwhile is actually going outside and determining that
the Earth is rotating in and out of its orbital shadow rather than
sunrise and sunset which would be valid under the Newtonian scheme.The
early 20th century concepts basically reduced this quasi-geocentric
view further to homocentricity and it remains stuck there.


 And in limits
> which Newton outlined the experimental check of these laws is
> impeccable. We have to understand it before accusing someone in
> somewhat. ;-) And it would be much better if you roll up your sleeves
> and develop our knowledge of nature. Believe me, this is much more
> difficult than to accuse others that they do  not love the nature. ;-)
> Then you will understand, for example, that if in one part of his
> theory one denied the aether, introducing convenient postulates, as
> Einstein did, and in the second part introduced the aether, he should
> not wonder, why finally these parts appear irrelevant.
>

Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer never needed an aether,it is useless for
investiagating astronomy and the underlying geometry between observed
planetary motions and their actual motions.The difficulties arising
from Newtonian astronomical framework was causing great difficulties
in the mid 19th century in determining the Sun attracting the Earth
and the Sun illuminating the Earth but only in the 1930's with
galactic observations making their appearance could questions of
Keplerian motion really be answered.


 
> And concerning Newton's attitude to the idea of aether, I already
> explained you and cited Newton. The problem of aether impeding bodies'
> motion actually existed and was partly lifted only after the wave
> nature of light and unified nature of EM field and light were
> established - in 19th, not in 17th century. In Descartes' vortex
> theory this difficulty took its place in full size. It even now is not
> fully lifted, it only is shifted deeper to the phenomenology. It can
> be solved only after we will have solved the structure of particles.
> Quarks, gravitons, meson fields will hardly help, as well as string
> theory, fractals etc. They have been built on fantasies, not on
> observed and checked phenomena. They are not the way. The way is where
> the conception passes from hypothesis to the name of theory only after
> multiple check from different sides and the main, when it is closed -
> when the results obtained in different ways are fully consistent with
> each other and with experiments.
>

Geologists don't do 'thought-experiments',they recognise the Earth's
geological evolutionary history embedded in rocks and attempt to work
out how events unfolded through surface features.Because astronomical
records of orbital variations show up in geological records it is now 
possible to achieve cosmological modelling by incorporating the
mechanism for orbital variations as variations in the solar system's
motion from a cyclical 100 000 year variation from an inner and outer
galactic orbit.

How dumb relativists look by imagining that as you look into space it
represents the astronomical 'past' other than the
geological/astronomical past embedded in sedimentary laying in rocks.


 
> On this way we may not choose from a broad scope of revelations only
> some convenient, shutting our eyes to inconvenient revelations of an
> effect, as the supporters of photon theory do. To be true, the
> hypothesis has to corroborate ALL possible experimental results. One
> experiment with which this hypothesis does not match can kill it. With
> it, if the conception on the whole has been built without bias, the
> negative experiment will only better outline its limits of
> applicability and open the way to clear our understanding up. Just
> this occurs with Newton's conception in passing to sub-light
> velocities. But if the postulates were selected for the author's
> convenience, just as in GR, SR, QM, QED, photon theory and so on, one
> inconsistent experiment can destroy the whole building of existing
> conception. This is what we all see now, under great displeasure and
> highly aggressive behaviour of supporters of above conceptions and of
> people who like to "think the physics out".
>

Your argument is with those who determine that all things must be
filtered through an experiment whereas the conceptions of
geological/astronomical history requires only the ability to make
correct correlations.Steno in the 17th century determined that
sedimentary layers which are observed to be vertical on the side of
mountains were once in geological times to be horizontal,this type of
reasoning can be refined to the point with sedimentary classifications
without disturbing the underlying principle.Relativity is the symptom
of a disease brought on by Newton for the underlying astronomical
principles on which he formulated his ballistic agenda does'nt
exist,the rotation rate of the Earth is wrong,he combines axial and
orbital motion,the stars are not fixed and what have you.



 
> And we may not think any authority in the science as an infallible
> god, as you are trying to represent and to accuse Newton. I told you
> already, we have to consider Newton's results in the context of data
> available at his time. His result is what is important. And the result
> is, his mechanical laws impeccably work at small velocities.

Suit yourself for ultimately you assume that they don't work at higher
velocities and that makes you a relativist plain and simple.Orbital
variations such as Mercury's or artificial trajectories such as
Pioneer 10 have a better astronomical setting after the motion of the
solar system around the galactic axis was discovered but you remain
stuck in the era where none of this was known.



 There are
> still only vain attempts to re-phrase the Newton's law of gravity, as
> I already told you. And I would like to emphasise, namely Newton's law
> was the prototype of Coulomb's law, and we can say, this was the start
> point in the search of unified field theory. It would not be good of
> us to accuse Newton of what the descendants have fantasised excessive,
> or made not well, or distorted. He made his part well, and this part
> became a stage of new understanding of physical laws and of philosophy
> as well. ;-) And it is a natural thing that any theory is then
> improved or added. If you see, how can you improve it - do it, not
> revile the author. If you understood the meaning of mass as the
> measure of inertia, or if you have revealed the nature of
> gravitational interaction - again, it is not worthy to accuse Newton.
> Show us your results with the same proof as it is done in classical
> physics. If your meaning contradicts Newton laws, prove it
> experimentally. If in one part it corresponds and in another does not,
> show that you are right, too. Have you any problem? ;-)
> 

I am satisfied that as long as you remain looking for experimental
evidence you are going nowhere for like geology,astronomy can only be
accomplished in principle insofar as the time and distance scales
reflect the enormity and magnificence of the cosmos.Whether the
effects of finite light distance from distant supernova and their
parent galaxies or the actual relationship between the observed
position of galaxies to our own and to each other in determining
structure and motion,none of it can be discerned by the claustraphobia
of lab top experiments or silly opinions that mascerade as
'thought-experiments'.





> It is so easy to relive everyone and everything.. . This is not the
> way to the truth. Truth does not like mud, mean tricks, labels. Truly
> loving the laws of nature, you would know it, not only trade the
> slogans and labels. This is the monopoly of supporters of Relativity
> and photon theory. This is just why the truth is out of their
> interest. ;-)
>

You have no reason to complain,your views will always receive an
airing as the methods and ends to which you tend are the same.In
strenghtening the areas of the relationship between geology,terrestial
evolution,climatology and astronomy,people have found a better way to
appreceate the connection between humanity and its surroundings,you
can wax lyrical on final theories and how complicated it all is but
namedropping and labelling is such a poor excuse,this being now the
sole purpose of physics and physicists.


 
> The same, it is their manner - to answer about astronomical history of
> the Earth to the thesis substantiating the succession of Faraday and
> Maxwell insights, to speak of Foucault pendulum in respond to the
> citation from Faraday about finite speed of propagation of magnetic
> interaction. ;-) Or to leave unanswered inconvenient citations from
> Maxwell about aether and from Einstein - about the problems that he
> has put into the underpinning of GR. As a scientists truly loving the
> nature and standing for separation of conceptions, you surely
> understand it well. And not only understand, but follow this principle
> in your actions and discussions. Do not you agree with me? ;-)
> 
> Sergey

You belong to a different era even though it still remains firmly
entrenched in society.The horror of the Newtonian labyrinth was
superceded by the early 20th century one where men call out to each
other from dead ends that have grown in number exponentially in recent
times.The way out is always an option and not that difficult a step to
take,either by recognising the Newtonian astronomical template to be a
quasi-geocentric one or more productively to incorporate the solar
system's motion around the galactic axis and its influence on
heliocentric planetary orbital motion.