geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0409080532.551fa572@posting.google.com>...
> 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.

I do not look ahead so easy. Indeed, Ticho de Brahe connected
Ptolemy's and Copernicus' systems. Kepler's mechanics in no way
contradicts this relation, and I do not see any reason to accuse
someone in simplification, because the geometrical re-calculation is
possible when passing from one frame to another. Basically, tensor
analysis on which the supporters of Relativity ground their reasoning
is in its essence the same merely geometrical re-calculation; in this
form it was developed by Riemann, Yegorov, Lobachevsky.

I am sorry to say, but in this case you are demonstrating just the
sophistry against which Bacon appeared, and not only he.


>  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.

The main value of Newton's work are not his astronomical calculations
per se. He carried out all his astronomical calculations in order to
build the phenomenology of gravitational interaction. The value of
Newton's work is in his formula for gravitational interaction. I
already wrote you of it. To reduce his Principia to merely
astronomical calculations is just inadmissible primitivisation which
you are seeking in others.
 
>  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.

This does not lessen Newton's achievements. With all his genius,
Newton could not and had not to answer all questions. He was not god,
like we all. But he gave us the tool which allowed us to calculate and
to analyse, in that number things of which you are speaking. I can
repeat, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes did it not. And this
sounds really exactly and more correctly reflects Newton's
significance than what you are trying to attribute to him. And as to
ice ages and historical records in geology, we still have to prove
conventional interpretations correct. For today, there exist many
versions, but they all have more difficulties than answers.

>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.

When you write down these deviations in the view of phenomenology of
process, you will use the concepts of force and mass in Newton's
interpretation. You and we all still have no other way - of course, if
you yourself do not refine the concept of mass as measure of inertia
and phenomenology of gravitational interaction. And I see no problem
that Newton did not account some nuances of dynamics. He emphasised
that he considers stationary processes without transients. Yes, it was
a restriction. But this was beginning, and from this view this all was
natural. To take into account the transients about which you are
writing, we have to account moments of inertia. In frames of Newton's
dynamics they appeared much later. In particular, we in our paper "On
physical nature of postulate of existence of stable stationary states
of oscillators"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#quant

showed the condition under which spiral arms are formed when
disbalance of masses causes moments of inertia. It would be too early
to require this from Newton. This all will gradually find its
solutions in frame of Newton's mechanics. Just Newton's, because just
Newton's laws will be the basis of advanced calculations. And the fact
that Newton did not analyse in Principia such concepts as moments of
inertia of 1, 2, 3 etc. orders does not weaken his work, as all these
calculations have been made on the basis of his calculus and
phenomenology of mechanics.

 
>  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.

Just the basis which was built in the early 20th century has to dye
fully with all what was grounded on it later, so it will not defend
Newton. The features of relativistic mechanics revealed by Lorentz, in
no case by Einstein, will be essentially improved in frames of
Lorentz' conception, and will find themselves out of frames of
Newton's mechanics. So they with all their wish will be unable to
defend Newton, as they are out of area of applicability of Newton's
phenomenology.

>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.

I already wrote you: if you have an improvement in your disposal, both
me and colleagues would like to see just your improvement, not a
distortion of Newton's studies to satisfy what you want. Please write
yours, and we will analyse it together. ;-)

>The
> early 20th century concepts basically reduced this quasi-geocentric
> view further to homocentricity and it remains stuck there.

Sorry again, but here you feast your eyes upon phrases - Bacon just
appeared against it. The meaning of Einstein's GR (if, speaking of the
early 20th century, you are meaning GR) is other. And the problems are
other. These usually are theologians who speak of so-called
quasi-geocentric and homocentric approach. As far as I can understand,
we discuss the physics of processes, so hardly someone will dare to
defend geocentric approach here. I am afraid, is it a simple
verbality. One thing I cannot understand: if you have some solutions,
show them, but do not accuse Newton of what he has not. Do at least a
thousandth part of what Newton did for his time and his level of
science development.
 
>  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.

For the level at which these authors made their calculations, they
really needed no aether, and namely in this meaning Newton says in the
above citation that you gave. But staying at the level of geometric
calculation, we will stay at the level of 17th century. Whilst Newton
has already broken through the boundaries of this phenomenology, when
introduced the concept of force to the condition of planetary
interaction. But when we are speaking of, what causes this
interaction, of conditions of light propagation - here we find
necessary to note the medium which carries the EM oscillations and
gravitational interaction. Even Einstein understood it, not in vain he
introduced aether to GR, or he would have nothing to warp. To warp the
geometry - it is a bluff. Only materiality can be warped, and we have
before to define the terminology of warping. This was Bergmann who
tried to do so in frames of GR, and his attempt tore to shreds the
axiomatics of Einstein's approach. Though he did not understand it.

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.

I don't think so. If under 30th you are meaning the Hubble's
regularity, I can only mention that on different forums the
phenomenology of Doppler red shift was reasonably beaten. This is a
separate large issue which is partly enlightened in our paper "On the
nature of red shift of metagalaxy"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#hubble

In that paper we gave the phenomenology of physical process causing
the Hubble red shift, free of discrepancies of Doppler interpretation.
Our interpretation in no way exceeds Newton's mechanics, and the fact
that it lifted ALL discrepancies of conventional interpretation
defends Newton's approach. Again, all accusations that Newton did not
write the Bible of physics are simplification based on feebleness of
this who states. Newton gave us the basis and the possibility to
develop it correctly. He had not to give us everything. And we have to
develop, not to blame him. Where he was inexact - we have to correct,
where the processes exceed his phenomenology - we have to develop and
to improve. This will be a good way to progress. While you are
permanently reducing this all to merely geometrical astronomy. I can
assure you, this subject was ate in 17-19th centuries, and we cannot
advance, doing not taking into account the phenomenology of physical
processes. You are playing with a shadow, and some other authors
statistically select numbers - both things are useless, as they do not
deepen our understanding. If you understand it, this will be the
principal result of our dialogue, or, as far as I can see, you already
began to limit it to geometrical approach. You do not advance new
arguments. You do not give more powerful interpretations than Kepler
and Newton gave. While without it our dialogue has been already
accomplished.


> > 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.

They also have their insights and predictions. For example, the
discovery of Yakut diamonds was a breakthrough in understanding the
geological structure of crust. This discovery has been made
theoretically. It is not worthy to offend geologists. ;-)

>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.

If speaking of the very possibility, this is surely basically
possible, but we read these records made with almost effaced
cuneiform, in unknown language. This is just the problem of physics to
decipher these records correctly and exactly and then to base on them
our models. So I'm afraid, your claims are too premature and bravura,
and I would be more pleased if you instead it deciphered at least one
symbol in this cuneiform. This is what we are trying to do (in that
number). This is what I ask you, still without result. Let us leave
slogans for politicians, for election campaign.

> 
> 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.

The nature is many-sided. Looking to cosmos, we see one things, in
stones we see others. These are different symbols of cuneiform.
Something is common, and something different, each has its nuances.
This all surely are parts of some general process occurring in the
universe. Relativists, limiting themselves to the warping, throw out
many things necessary for understanding general processes. And trying
to fantasy the phenomenon, they come to marasmus. But this is another
matter. Nothing to say that the longer we are discussing the farther
we leave the initial subject - electromagnetism. I would be pleased if
you explain me, what is the relation between these subjects. ;-)

> > 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.

We really have to filter all ideas through experiments, and even not
through one but through series of experiments. The same in astronomy:
until Cassini did not reach Saturn, they did not see that rings
consist of dirty ice. Before this, they could think whatever. The
same, they supposed Jupiter consisting of hydrogen, cold up to
metallic state, until their messenger burned in hot ammonia of upper
layers of atmosphere. They expected ocean on Venus and channels on
Mars. Recently NASA published an image of one galaxy, NGC 4622,
stating that one its spiral goes clockwise and another - oppositely.
After we published our paper on spiral galaxies (mentioned above),
they considered it again and drew their spirals more correctly, in
accordance with what we proved. True, they did not refer to our paper
nor us, but these are already matters of their punctilio in authorship
of which Americans so much like to speak. We publishing their images
strongly refer to them and never forget to describe the authors'
interpretation, if appropriate. ;-)
 
> > 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.

If speaking of, in what I am stuck, this is the physics of processes.
We really have to improve the mechanical laws for large velocities,
but Einstein's relativism does not follow from this. When we say
"relativist", we always mean that of Einstein, and forget that the
trend of relativity  appeared long before Einstein. It is not worthy
to confuse them. We have to improve the phenomenology of mechanics at
large velocities, but not with Einstein's absurd postulates. So I
never become relativist because of understanding that we have to do
it. They will long wait. ;-)

I only cannot catch one thing: do you want to hang on me some dogs?
Why I every time hear from you about some my imaginary limitedness?
Could you obtain at least one tenth part of results which we already
have obtained, after this we will speak of my limitedness. Still I see
that you are limiting yourself to scholasticism. While we not only
account the galactic orbiting of the Sun, we show the cause and
regularity of this orbiting. Still no one could do it. We show the
causes, why stars and galaxies evolve and why they never can collide
with each other, while most astrophysicists stuff their computers with
calculations of galaxy cannibalism. And you are speaking of ellipses
variation, saying nothing about causes, why these elliptic
trajectories can form. If we speak of limitedness, this concerns
people who instead to study, fantasies the phenomena. While we
rigorously prove ours.


>  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'.

I think, you are hardly satisfied with it. The same as hardly one
could study seriously the galaxies without Hubble's experimental
basis. I can tell you it responsibly. And where to are we going? We
are going from one discovery to a next, from one experiment to a next,
from one solution to a next. Yes, you are going from one slinging mud
at one to the slinging at a next, from fantasying one thing to a next,
from labelling one author to labelling the next. Still I see, we have
different paths, and with such approach they will hardly cross.
Possibly, this is for better. Each has his own way.

> > 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.

I see, you not so much attentively analysed our papers. Unlike many
others, we not often refer to other authors; usually our original part
of work refers only to mathematical operations. And we already are the
authors of final theories. We have yielded a full amount of solutions
for 1 D models in many-body dynamics; in this area we left other
authors only to solve applied problems. We also extended this complex
of solutions for the theory of electric filters, and in frames of
linear filters we much exceeded the level of solutions possible for
conventional methods. Of course, we cannot do everything, but we have
dug much. We even feel pleasure when glance back. But this is not the
only aim, because in some areas we put the start points, expecting the
next generations of researchers. Basically, this is an usual way of
development. Something has been done before us and was passed to us,
something we have to pass to the next generations. ;-) If not so, we
would still wear pelts and brandish cudgels. ;-)
  
> > 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.

Again and again. To see the way out, one has to have a wish to see the
essence, not to try to squeeze things into frames of his own today
understanding. Every way is the surmount, surmount himself first of
all. I mean the analysis of relations and solving the problems,
renewal, creation, matching of new relations. We have to do this all
at once, in order the cut out material to do not tear at our seams.
But judging by your theses, you have found some quasi-term of
quasi-geocentric template and reduced Newton's genius to this, having
no wish to see that his genius is not in this but in the tool which
allows us to improve, and these improvements will more and more agree
with experiments. I already wrote you above: whatever model will you
choose, as soon as you start your calculations, you will use Newton's
mechanical laws. This is an unquestionable argument against all your
accusations. ;-)

Sergey