History Copernican corrections

[supportyourteam]

Not sure that BigFooty is a forum of good society conscience or not, but, through a peculiar childhood circumstance, can possibly help the world along a bit. What is required today is making a connection with professors and or politicians of good conscience. Must be a couple of them lurking somewhere you would reckon. or you might know one. The peculiar childhood circumstance was seeing Galileo's reasoning about why the earth is suspended above the sun was not too good. The reasoning engaged in an irrelevancy about where the earth would go if the sun's gravity did not exist. What Galileo did not know and what we do know today is the sun is moving at a superior speed to that of the planets relative to the sun. That's the solution to the red herring consideration of where the planets would go if a fixed sun had no gravity. Past experience says it difficult to find anyone, academic or otherwise, prepared to consider a world moving from the falsity of today's fixed sun societies to the unknown of a moving sun being a foundation point of world education. For this reason of that, the video took the old man the best part of a year to make but hopefully it is a fairly innocuous act posting a link to it here. The unproven reasoning about why Venus turns backwards and why the earth experiences 24 hours in a day should interest most anybody but mainly why geniuses do not see Galileo's mistake at a glance is the unanswerable question that the video raises. You just have to be awake at the secondary school level to see where the world is wrong. Anyway, go Bombers. If an asteroid is about to hit, doesn't matter much. Venus can turn anyway it wants. Collingwood will get what it deserves at the same time. That's a bit hard. Don't mind Josh. See what Nick can do.

 

[Malifice]

Thanks George.

Mate, I'm not entirely sure you have a correct grasp of planetary physics.

 

[supportyourteam]

Thanks George.

Mate, I'm not entirely sure you have a correct grasp of planetary physics.

Go on. The correct grasp is...

 

[CM86]

Go on. The correct grasp is...

Not sure that BigFooty is a forum of good society conscience or not, but, through a peculiar childhood circumstance, can possibly help the world along a bit. What is required today is making a connection with professors and or politicians of good conscience. Must be a couple of them lurking somewhere you would reckon. or you might know one. The peculiar childhood circumstance was seeing Galileo's reasoning about why the earth is suspended above the sun was not too good. The reasoning engaged in an irrelevancy about where the earth would go if the sun's gravity did not exist. What Galileo did not know and what we do know today is the sun is moving at a superior speed to that of the planets relative to the sun. That's the solution to the red herring consideration of where the planets would go if a fixed sun had no gravity. Past experience says it difficult to find anyone, academic or otherwise, prepared to consider a world moving from the falsity of today's fixed sun societies to the unknown of a moving sun being a foundation point of world education. For this reason of that, the video took the old man the best part of a year to make but hopefully it is a fairly innocuous act posting a link to it here. The unproven reasoning about why Venus turns backwards and why the earth experiences 24 hours in a day should interest most anybody but mainly why geniuses do not see Galileo's mistake at a glance is the unanswerable question that the video raises. You just have to be awake at the secondary school level to see where the world is wrong. Anyway, go Bombers. If an asteroid is about to hit, doesn't matter much. Venus can turn anyway it wants. Collingwood will get what it deserves at the same time. That's a bit hard. Don't mind Josh. See what Nick can do.

I mean, instead of your Ctrl C, Ctrl V... and YouTube channel promotion.

Did you have a point?

 

[CM86]

Prblm foundations of physics?
Please watch my video, that is desperate for views... to prove me wrong!

 

[supportyourteam]

I mean, instead of your Ctrl C, Ctrl V... and YouTube channel promotion.

Did you have a point?

Yes. It is physically impossible for the planets to orbit a fixed sun. Don't really care for my you tube channel ((as you call it (there is only one reluctant video)) but if you can, please explain how the earth could orbit a fixed sun. If you can, you can. If you can't, well you should be able to begin to see that world education is living a significant mistake. No further explanation necessary from this side.

 

[Malifice]

Yes. It is physically impossible for the planets to orbit a fixed sun. Don't really care for my you tube channel ((as you call it (there is only one reluctant video)) but if you can, please explain how the earth could orbit a fixed sun.

Because that's how Orbits work.

• A force, such as gravity, pulls an object into a curved path as it attempts to fly off in a straight line.
• As the object is pulled toward the massive body, it falls toward that body. However, if it also has enough tangential velocity it will not fall into the body but will instead continue to follow the curved trajectory caused by that body indefinitely. The object is then said to be orbiting the body.

Orbit - Wikipedia

The Earth is constantly falling towards the Sun (because of the Suns gravity), but it also has enough tangential gravitational velocity to wind up trapped in a never ending trajectory around the Sun. While Newtonian physics (inverse-square law) suggests the orbits should be circular, thanks to relativity (specifically curved space-time) we perceive an elliptical orbit (the ellipsis caused by the curved nature of space-time), something that was observed by Kepler 500 years ago.

The Sun is moving as well (it's orbiting the center of the Milky Way at 250km/s) dragging the Earth (and the other planets in our Solar system) along with it.

 

[Frank Bunn]

While Newtonian physics (inverse-square law) suggests the orbits should be circular, thanks to relativity (specifically curved space-time) we perceive an elliptical orbit (the ellipsis caused by the curved nature of space-time)

Wrong. Newtonian mechanics explains conic sections (circles, ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas). Space-time is another model to allow humans to model reality. But it's not necessary to accurately predict the movements of the planets.

 

[supportyourteam]

Because that's how Orbits work.

• A force, such as gravity, pulls an object into a curved path as it attempts to fly off in a straight line.
• As the object is pulled toward the massive body, it falls toward that body. However, if it also has enough tangential velocity it will not fall into the body but will instead continue to follow the curved trajectory caused by that body indefinitely. The object is then said to be orbiting the body.

Orbit - Wikipedia

The Earth is constantly falling towards the Sun (because of the Suns gravity), but it also has enough tangential gravitational velocity to wind up trapped in a never ending trajectory around the Sun. While Newtonian physics (inverse-square law) suggests the orbits should be circular, thanks to relativity (specifically curved space-time) we perceive an elliptical orbit (the ellipsis caused by the curved nature of space-time), something that was observed by Kepler 500 years ago.

The Sun is moving as well (it's orbiting the center of the Milky Way at 250km/s) dragging the Earth (and the other planets in our Solar system) along with it.

That's the hocus pocus of Galileo's Copernican revolution solution, Malfice. Gravity causes acceleration. Any body subject to acceleration moves in the direction of that acceleration. In this case towards the sun. If you add your tangential velocity to that acceleration, you get a spiral into the sun. As demonstrated per the first minute of the video.
That is just simply kinematics you learn as a 14 year old. Acceleration + velocity is a motion in the direction of the acceleration. What you are doing is using your tangential velocity to lift the planet up against the acceleration towards the sun that it is experiencing. The mistake is clear. The only way you can make sense of what you are trying to say is if the sun's gravity is intermittent.

You can clearly see on this regular school book diagram lifted from the internet, for a planet to follow the so called inertial path for the merest increment of displacement in the direction of the inertial path, a lifting force would be required to enable such. The tangential direction is taking the object further away from the mass that is causing the descent. Yo can see that can't you? Pretty simple.
The note at the end your quote is where the solution lies. The actual gravity causing the descent (the sun's) is moving at a far superior speed to descent speed it is generating at the earth's distance from the sun. In one second the sun's gravity field travels 250 km according to your quote (Most sources place the speed of the sun's gravity field at closer to 200 km/sec). Regardless, at the earth's distance from the sun, in one second of descent the earth falls about 0.006 metres towards the sun. While falling that small distance, the earth advances 200 km around the galaxy in the cause of its descent. If you have the inclination to follow all that through, you will start to get an understanding of the earth's yearly 'orbit' around the sun through the motion of the sun's gravity field. You have to forgive Galileo. He didn't know the sun was moving and had other issues to be dealing with. But his mistake is plain and clear.

 

[Pie eyed]

Congrats.
You have done well to have your theory survive this long.

I laughed.

 

[Malifice]

Wrong. Newtonian mechanics explains conic sections (circles, ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas). Space-time is another model to allow humans to model reality. But it's not necessary to accurately predict the movements of the planets.

Gravity IS the curvature of space-time. Gravity is also what causes orbits to happen:

Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time

Gravity allows for falling apples, our day/night cycle, curved starlight, our planets and stars, and even time travel ...

www.science.org.au

 

[Malifice]

That's the hocus pocus of Galileo's Copernican revolution solution, Malfice. Gravity causes acceleration. Any body subject to acceleration moves in the direction of that acceleration. In this case towards the sun. If you add your tangential velocity to that acceleration, you get a spiral into the sun. As demonstrated per the first minute of the video.
That is just simply kinematics you learn as a 14 year old. Acceleration + velocity is a motion in the direction of the acceleration. What you are doing is using your tangential velocity to lift the planet up against the acceleration towards the sun that it is experiencing. The mistake is clear. The only way you can make sense of what you are trying to say is if the sun's gravity is intermittent.
View attachment 1302772
You can clearly see on this regular school book diagram lifted from the internet, for a planet to follow the so called inertial path for the merest increment of displacement in the direction of the inertial path, a lifting force would be required to enable such. The tangential direction is taking the object further away from the mass that is causing the descent. Yo can see that can't you? Pretty simple.
The note at the end your quote is where the solution lies. The actual gravity causing the descent (the sun's) is moving at a far superior speed to descent speed it is generating at the earth's distance from the sun. In one second the sun's gravity field travels 250 km according to your quote (Most sources place the speed of the sun's gravity field at closer to 200 km/sec). Regardless, at the earth's distance from the sun, in one second of descent the earth falls about 0.006 metres towards the sun. While falling that small distance, the earth advances 200 km around the galaxy in the cause of its descent. If you have the inclination to follow all that through, you will start to get an understanding of the earth's yearly 'orbit' around the sun through the motion of the sun's gravity field. You have to forgive Galileo. He didn't know the sun was moving and had other issues to be dealing with. But his mistake is plain and clear.

No, you're not looking at gravity correctly. In your model the earth is like a ball inside a bowl spinning around till it runs out of momentum and spirals gradually to the bottom.

How do you think man made satellites and the moon work?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Gravity IS the curvature of space-time. Gravity is also what causes orbits to happen:

Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time

Gravity allows for falling apples, our day/night cycle, curved starlight, our planets and stars, and even time travel ...

www.science.org.au

What you said was incorrect. Newtonian mechanics does not suggest planetary orbits should be circular. Newtonian mechanics adequately describes the laws of gravity governing the elliptical motion of the planets, along with how gravity applies on earth.

Newton never claimed to know how gravity works. Einstein proposed a more sophisticated model of gravity that applies in certain circumstances but the difference between the two models would be insignificant enough that it would barely be a consideration for example, on a voyage to Mars.

 

[supportyourteam]

No, you're not looking at gravity correctly. In your model the earth is like a ball inside a bowl spinning around till it runs out of momentum and spirals gradually to the bottom.

How do you think man made satellites and the moon work?

Same. Whether it be the sun's or the earth's, it's the motion of the inverse square law that allows suspension above an inverse square law. Serious argument against that statement are going to be hard to mount.

It is the motion of the inverse square law that Newton needed to understand or work out when he set about explaining the physics of suspension.

In my illustrative fixed gravity field model, the earth actually gains momentum as its spirals into the sun.

If you are serious about the Copernican revolution not needing a correction, you would need to explain why you ignore the motion of the gravity field/inverse square law when you know that it is motion. Or why Einstein so ignores if you want to tie your self to the usual modern god that academia so does.

You will have to pardon me but I suspect you will be undrinking horse led to water so don't bother replying if you don't wish. It's just an act of conscience on my part pointing out where academia is drastically wrong in its approach to the universe. And how it could improve its self if it recognized the motion of the gravity field.

Incidentally in your unthought through bowl illustration, you do notice that the ball is unable to maintain momentum? That's the same as a satellite in a fixed gravity field model. The 'orbit' could not continue.

It's no ones fault, including yours, that first Galileo, then Newton and now Einstein all ignore the motion of a gravity field. It's just that the historical ignorance of all three about the motion of a gravity field and in turn world scholarship over the last few centuries in undeniable. Car'n the Dons.

 

[supportyourteam]

What you said was incorrect. Newtonian mechanics does not suggest planetary orbits should be circular. Newtonian mechanics adequately describes the laws of gravity governing the elliptical motion of the planets, along with how gravity applies on earth.

Newton never claimed to know how gravity works. Einstein proposed a more sophisticated model of gravity that applies in certain circumstances but the difference between the two models would be insignificant enough that it would barely be a consideration for example, on a voyage to Mars.

You are a space time continuum adherent are you. If so can you explain why mass exists in two forms?

 

[Frank Bunn]

You are a space time continuum adherent are you. If so can you explain why mass exists in two forms?

I am an adherent of scientific models that work ie that they give reliable predictions that are valid for a limited range of physical conditions.

So a flat earth model is fine for going about your daily life - you could start a family, build a house, cure cancer - without ever worrying whether the world was flat or on the back of a giant turtle. If you want to sail between continents it would be essential to use a round world model. If you want to travel to the moon or Mars you should be using the laws that Newton discovered. Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong. General relativity increased the scope and accuracy of predictions at high gravitational fields. Special relativity extended the range to include very high speeds.

But these models are merely human ways of understanding the underlying reality. We see a billiard ball as round, as we do the Earth. But a different model tells us that each atom is mainly empty space. We have no way of knowing 'reality' outside our human experience.

Then there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Some of the smartest scientists claim that 68% of the universe is Dark Energy, Dark Matter makes up about 27% and the rest, ie everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all "normal matter" - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. This seems like "modelling of the gaps". You can't explain the physical observed evidence so you invent unobserved phenomenon.

 

[supportyourteam]

I am an adherent of scientific models that work ie that they give reliable predictions that are valid for a limited range of physical conditions.

So a flat earth model is fine for going about your daily life - you could start a family, build a house, cure cancer - without ever worrying whether the world was flat or on the back of a giant turtle. If you want to sail between continents it would be essential to use a round world model. If you want to travel to the moon or Mars you should be using the laws that Newton discovered. Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong. General relativity increased the scope and accuracy of predictions at high gravitational fields. Special relativity extended the range to include very high speeds.

But these models are merely human ways of understanding the underlying reality. We see a billiard ball as round, as we do the Earth. But a different model tells us that each atom is mainly empty space. We have no way of knowing 'reality' outside our human experience.

Then there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Some of the smartest scientists claim that 68% of the universe is Dark Energy, Dark Matter makes up about 27% and the rest, ie everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all "normal matter" - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. This seems like "modelling of the gaps". You can't explain the physical observed evidence so you invent unobserved phenomenon.

I meant why is a same mass divided into the two forms of 'inertial' and 'gravitational' as we get taught at school? Einstein's theory of general relativity is founded on this statement of his.

A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass) . (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) . (Gravitational mass).
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body. Albert Einstein.

The point is if there is only the mass type of mass, then general relativity is founded upon the most minor truth of mass = mass. So the question was, if you are a general relativity adherent, why does the same mass exist in these two forms. Each form measures the same magnitude wise and each employs Newton's second law to be measured, so why wouldn't measurements of each of inertial mass and gravitational mass simply be mass being measured as mass? If you are a scientist you have to at least ask the question.

Your problem of science is a model that gives reliable predictions is not necessarily a truth. As mentioned in that video, Tyco Brahe was drawn to astronomy as a youngster by an accurate prediction of an upcoming eclipse. That accurate prediction was made from the founding belief that the earth is fixed in the centre of the universe. Thus on your standard of acceptance of a scientific model, the earth could be fixed in the centre of the universe. That's not a high grade standard and is a standard that has the habit of allowing false beliefs to be upheld.

Allowing that you recognize that Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, if you do want Newton's gravity concept proven wrong (not the inverse square law part, his statement about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe) that is done at the end of the video. When I got that far that was enough video for me.

Happy to cite that flawed Newtonian reasoning here in this thread. A part from too many particles, too vast a universe, it's not hard to explain where Newton has gone wrong on that one. But I guess not really expecting anyone wedded to scholarship as it stands to be interested. Pity but. It's statement that has the world in a bigger mess that it need be.

 

[supportyourteam]

Because that's how Orbits work.

• A force, such as gravity, pulls an object into a curved path as it attempts to fly off in a straight line.
• As the object is pulled toward the massive body, it falls toward that body. However, if it also has enough tangential velocity it will not fall into the body but will instead continue to follow the curved trajectory caused by that body indefinitely. The object is then said to be orbiting the body.

Orbit - Wikipedia

The Earth is constantly falling towards the Sun (because of the Suns gravity), but it also has enough tangential gravitational velocity to wind up trapped in a never ending trajectory around the Sun. While Newtonian physics (inverse-square law) suggests the orbits should be circular, thanks to relativity (specifically curved space-time) we perceive an elliptical orbit (the ellipsis caused by the curved nature of space-time), something that was observed by Kepler 500 years ago.

The Sun is moving as well (it's orbiting the center of the Milky Way at 250km/s) dragging the Earth (and the other planets in our Solar system) along with it.

Attempting (tangential velocity) is something that might happen. Moving an attempted such velocity to an actual such velocity is yours to do if you are going to be as honest as Kevin (Sheedy). Thanks to whoever suggested that this is an attempt to promote a YouTube channel. If such was the interpretation of a few Copernican revolution mistakes being corrected, thought we best have a go at starting one.