1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO.AMATEUR

  • The beginning of physics

    From kelleher.gerald@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 6 01:44:34 2022
    I really like the beginning of physics and the intelligence applied to cause and effect by drawing on analogies-

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1665.0108

    It all went sideways when predictions took over from interpretation where solar system research was used to support experimental sciences and geometry was misused to satisfy the emergence of semi-masonic equations.

    Modelling for interpretative purposes was lost and remains so although that may change in future, it takes effort to revisit the area of research where the first Sun-centred researchers sought to justify observations seen from a rotating and orbitally
    moving Earth.

    Pretending that physics is at the end of something for those who begin with a celestial sphere no centre/no circumference Universe, however, computer modelling will be needed to link cause and effect between planetary motions and Earth sciences of
    biology, climate and geology.

    Congratulations to those who followed the RA/Dec framework in arriving at a complete understanding of your Universe. It looks like this-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to kellehe...@gmail.com on Sun Mar 6 10:27:25 2022
    On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:44:36 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

    It all went sideways when predictions took over from interpretation
    where solar system research was used to support experimental
    sciences and geometry was misused to satisfy the emergence
    of semi-masonic equations.

    I suppose the misuse of geometry to which you are referring is alleged
    to have taken place in the pages of _Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica_ (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), and so
    the "semi-masonic equations" to which you are referring are those involving calculus.

    And so, to you

    https://archive.org/details/absolutekeytoocc00papu

    and

    https://archive.org/details/introcelestial00moulrich

    are both equally nonsense and gobbeldygook.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From kelleher.gerald@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 6 11:52:50 2022
    It has nothing to do with priority, but rather cause and effect where experimental sciences are used for interpretation before theorists following Newton made predictions a priority by vandalising solar system research to suit their agenda.

    "Now in order to the giving account of these three periods, according to the Laws of Motion and mechanic principles (I take for granted, what is now today pretty commonly entertained by those, who treat of such matters- That a body in motion is apt to
    continue its motion, and that in the same degree of celerity, unless kindred by some contrary Impediment like a body at rest, to continue so, unless by some sufficient mover, put into motion." John Wallis, 1666

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1665.0108

    In dumping everything into an Ra/Dec celestial sphere contrivance, contemporaries can't work with electromagnetic properties which combine planetary motions around the Sun with the solar system's galactic orbital motion as an influence on orbital
    geometries. This is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

    The purpose of experimental modelling for interpretative purposes is the beginning of proper physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)