Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:22 pm

*

Hi, everyone. Our mutual friend Gopi has recently published some papers on the foundations of astronomy. Although we normally do not encourage much discussion about advanced physics or mathematics, I think these papers should be published and Simon will approve of our using CluesForum as a platform for a few select science works now and then, if just for critical awareness of their existence.

In this case, please allow me to republish a few papers of Gopi's in this thread, where his questions about Kepler's and Newton's problems are sharpened in specific critiques of logic and formulas.

I hope we can forgive an occasional name like Steiner or Mathis appearing, (the "offense" only because of potential controversy around names, not because of any particular critique of their work to discuss here) and just look to the thrust of the arguments being made about Kepler and Newton, which I trust could be instrumental in making a solid new foundation for astronomy and/or other scientific inquiries.

Thank you!

I think Gopi would be alright with my forwarding along a segment of his e-mail message to us as follows:

[... B]y going through Newton's proof carefully, we find that he did not derive the inverse-square law for planets, the law of gravity, and the laws of circular motion by mathematical necessity, but assumed it ad-hoc. I wanted to share this series of papers with you and the folks on this forum, and hope to see what you think of it:

1st paper: Replacing the Foundations of Astronomy provides an outline of the process, into which this research is embedded.
2nd paper: Identifies how Newton simply assumed the inverse-square law in planetary motion by cleverly disguising Kepler's third law.
3rd paper: Original form of Kepler's law, that he actually observed, and what was done to squeeze it to a linear system.
4th paper: The biggie showing gravity is insufficient, physically and mathematically, to sustain circular/elliptical motion. At most it provides one component of an infinite series.

I hope there is something here for all, and it is worth the digging. The first paper is written in a colloquial way, while the other three require good amount of algebra, and occasionally calculus. Having the Principia, even an e-copy, handy will also help. The last paper is the most relevant of all for the entire thread of research, where it shows that circular motion can only be seen in terms of forces if we include an infinite series of them. Picking up just acceleration due to gravity would be like picking up a grain of sand and calling it a beach.

Anyway happy reading, and hope some of it makes sense!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:27 pm

Replacing the Foundations of Astronomy
Gopi Krishna Vijaya


Napoleon Bonaparte: Mr. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and
have never even mentioned its Creator.

Pierre-Simon Laplace: I had no need to hypothesize His intervention.

- Reported from a conversation between the two men in 1802


“The old argument,” [Voldemort] said softly. “But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your
pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore.”

“Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places,” suggested Dumbledore.

- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince


Introduction: Dramatis Personae

The ancient view of the heavens was dominated by the Ptolemaic approach, which placed the earth in the center and
pictured the heavenly bodies uniformly moving in concentric circles around it. Where circles would not suffice, the
Ptolemaic theory used off-center circles and also mini-circles, called epicycles, for centuries – to fit theory to
observations. The modern view of the celestial universe takes its start in the 15th century from the ideas of Nicolaus
Copernicus and later Johannes Kepler. While Copernicus showed that calculations based on the heliocentric point of
view provided a much more convenient and aesthetic alternative to the Ptolemaic theory, he still remained with the
idea of using circles. Kepler, drawing on the data collected by Tycho Brahe, extended Copernican thought and was
the first to highlight the inner harmony in the movements of the planets with his three main identifications from
observation:
1. Every planet moves in an ellipse, with small eccentricity, and with the Sun at one of its focus
2. It covers equal areas in equal times
3. The different planets have an inner harmonic law: R^3 is proportional to T^2, provided eccentricities are small

Here R is the mean distance of the planet from the Sun, and T is its time period. Kepler figured out the third
‘harmonic’ law when his book Harmonies of the World was already in the press, so he did not have much time to
develop those ideas in detail. He began his book with the idea that planets from Mercury to Saturn are spaced in
terms of the five platonic solids, but after carrying out an analysis in terms of musical theory, he ended the book
with a most interesting conclusion: he declared that all his calculations based on rigid models were ultimately
failing, and he was forced to reconsider the heavens not in terms of rigid mechanical movements, but in terms of
harmonies of life. He expressly states that:

That is to say, in this house the world, I was asking not only why stones of a more elegant form but also what
form would fit the stones, in my ignorance that the Sculptor had fashioned them in the very articulate
image of an animated body
… Wherefore, just as neither the bodies of animate beings are made nor blocks
of stone are usually made after the pure rule of some geometrical figure
, but something is taken away from
the outward spherical figure, however elegant it maybe (although the just magnitude of the bulk remains), so
that the body may be able to get the organs necessary for life, and the stone the image of the animate being;
so too as the ratio which the regular solids had been going to prescribe for the planetary spheres is inferior
and looks only towards the body and material, it has to yield to the consonances, in so far as that was
necessary in order for the consonances to be able to stand closely by and adorn the movement of the globes.


This powerful conclusion showed clearly that no matter what model we may make of the heavens, and calculate to
the utmost precision, unless we realize that it has to be compatible with the phenomena of life, we are treating the
heavens like angular rocks and stones. And try as we might, they will not fit, just as a square does not fit in a round
hole.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:28 pm

Kepler also had another current of interest in the upcoming ideas of magnetism by Queen Elizabeth’s personal
physician: William Gilbert. America had been discovered and oceanic navigation was at an all-time high,
encouraging the use of the magnetic compass and the notion of earth as a giant magnet. Based on Gilbert’s work De
Magnete
, Kepler suggested seeing the planetary movements also as being magnetic in nature. At the time of Kepler
and even until the 18th century, the cause of magnetism was still seen as an animate (in fact due to anima or soul)
and also sometimes astrological in origin, and it did not have the purely inanimate connotation it took on later.

Meanwhile, Kepler’s contemporary – Galileo Galilei – was not only pointing his telescopes to the skies to find the
moons of Jupiter, but was also discovering the law of falling bodies. The Aristotelian worldview that had held for
more than a millennium had a garbled and confused idea of the behavior of inanimate projectiles such as rocks and
cannon-balls, and still thought that they were swimming through the air by pushing the air behind them. It was
Galileo who clarified this confusion and discovered a simple relation for most falling bodies: falling distance R is
proportional to t^2. This looks almost like an earthly version of Kepler’s Harmonic law. Both of these formulae broke
away from the habits of classic Greek science, which dealt only with speeds and not with accelerations and other
variations of motion.

After Kepler’s and Galileo’s death, astronomy had come to a crossroads. There was one route that suggested the
study of living things via harmonic and musical laws, opened up by Kepler, while the other path by Galileo opened
up the study of “movements of stones”: mechanics. The second path was chosen – by Newton.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:31 pm

*

The Newtonian Deviation

Newton set to work by abandoning all reference to harmonies and living qualities, and used Galileo’s law of falling
bodies as his starting point. There were several problems with this:

Problem 1: Galileo’s law had R is proportional to t^2 while the only known planetary law (Kepler’s) had R^3
proportional to T^2. There was hence a discrepancy of a factor 1/R^2 between Kepler’s and Galileo’s laws.

Problem 2: Kepler’s R was a two-dimensional average, and he had cautioned that his law is true only for orbits that
are nearly circular. Galileo’s R was simply a linear distance.

Problem 3: Galileo’s law was for vertical rectilinear motion i.e. falling straight down until hitting the ground. It was
not the same as a circular or elliptic motion, which is 2-dimensional, stable, and continuous.

Firstly, Kepler’s and Galileo’s laws were two different things, like apples and oranges. In order to push the Kepler’s
and Galileo’s ideas together, the only possible way was to assume that Galileo’s Law (acceleration) is valid as the
inverse square (1/R^2) for planetary motion! This would make up for the offset observed in the dimensions of R in
the two ratios. This idea was already put forward by some of his contemporaries like Hooke, Wren and others, but
Newton proceeded to assert it mathematically. By combining the two concepts, he asserted that an object in orbit
was “falling continuously”! Two birds were hit with one falling stone. Hence problem 1 was pushed aside.
The second problem was a little trickier, since it is hard to make a variable averaged over two dimensions and
reduce it to a line. But this was also done, by including the linear version of R as an implicit assumption in his
proofs, and later extricating it out and calling it a 2D-averaged R. Since this operation was hidden in a number of
dense proofs in his Principia (purposely written that way ‘to avoid being baited by smatterers in mathematics’
according to Newton) people came to believe that Newton proved Kepler’s Third Law mathematically. He had done
nothing of the sort, but had simply assumed a 1D version of the law without making it explicit. That way, there was
no further use for Kepler’s caution, and the distance R was indiscriminately applied for both circles and straight
lines. Hence, 2D was made 1D, and Problem 2 was also brushed aside, ad hoc.

Finally, in order to apply Galileo’s linear equation to circular motion, which is 2-dimensional, Newton had to
assume a linear attraction of a body moving in a circle to another body, in other words: “gravity”. A full
mathematical approach requires that circular motion is only possible when there is equilibrium between the
tendencies of the body to move towards the center and the tendency to move away from the center. It also requires
forces that are distributed in all directions in 2D, to generate a circular or elliptical orbit. Common sense dictates
unless something is pushing out as well as in, the system collapses inwards. In order to prove his ideas, Newton
completely ignored the tendency of a body to move away, and focused only on the tendency towards the center.
Still, there is one other dimension to deal with: the initial sideways velocity that is required to “start” the planetary
movements in his theory. Newton did not say anything clear on that. Hence Problem 3 was also completely brushed
aside.

The planetary-level inverse-square law of force was hence constructed in this fashion, by simply assuming it out of
thin air. It was asserted that just as an apple falls to the ground, all the heavenly bodies fall towards each other and
end up rotating around one another because of it. On top of that, similar to magnetism, it was also asserted that the
bodies “attract” one another. This is about as logical as asserting that if two balls are rolling towards each other, they
necessarily “attract” each other. Furthermore, based on which body was rotating around which and at what speed,
heavenly bodies were assigned masses. This needed a new concept of “gravitational mass”, once more simply
created. All of these elements were combined into the “Theory of Universal Gravitation,” and what was true on
earth was claimed to be true in the heavens. The numerical backing for the entirety of this theory was the numerical
relationship of one particular motion of the moon with the value of gravity on earth – almost like building an entire
castle on a single reed. And yet he claimed: “I feign no hypotheses.”

Naturally, there was backlash from continental Europe, from the likes of Huygens and Leibniz, for assuming a force
of attraction out of nothing. However, their arguments lacked teeth, since they had not mathematically shown that
circular motion cannot simply be defined by an attraction. The followers of Descartes had some idea that circular
motion required circular forces, and hence continued to ascribe planetary motion to celestial vortices, but they did
not have the mathematical capacity to challenge Newton’s derivations of “attraction towards a center”. The
philosopher Hegel vigorously criticized Newton’s concepts, but since Newton was so far ahead mathematically,
Hegel’s protests were ignored by the scientific community. It did not help that Newton was constantly embroiled in
priority disputes lasting decades, with Leibniz, Hooke and others – the atmosphere of open discussion was barely
existent. Newton’s high position, as President of the Royal Society for 24 years and Master of the Mint for 30 years,
also brooked no argument. Newton’s works were popularized in Europe with great energy by the likes of Voltaire
and Hume, and within a few decades, the theory of gravitation had become very well-known
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:34 pm

*

Epicycles Once More

Following the Newtonian era, in the 18th century there were a series of mathematicians – Bernoulli, Clairaut, Euler,
D’Alembert, Lagrange, Laplace, Leverrier – who basically picked up where Newton left off and ran with it. There
were no descendants to the wholistic viewpoints of Tycho and Kepler, but only those who made several
improvements of a mathematical nature to Newtonian theory. Calculus became a powerful tool in calculating the
effects of gravitation of all the planets upon each other, due to their assumed masses. The motion of the nearest
neighbor – the Moon – was a surprisingly hard nut to crack even for Newton, and several new mathematical
techniques had to be invented just to tackle that.

In the process, a new form of theory became popular: Perturbation theory. In this approach, a small approximate
deviation from Newton’s law is assumed, based on empirical data, and then a rigorous calculation of differential
equation is used to nail down the actual value of the deviation. It does not take much to recognize that this was
simply the approach taken before Kepler by Copernicus and others for over a thousand years – adding epicycles to
make the observations fit. It is the same concept, but now dressed up in gravitational disguise:

replacing astr 01.GIF


In other words, the entire thought process took several steps backwards, to redo the same process as the PtolemaicCopernican epicycle theory, only with different variables. The more logical way of approach would have been to
redirect the focus of the improved mathematical techniques to the assumptions in Newton’s theory, but instead the
same equations were re-derived with calculus, without examining the assumptions. Hence any modern day textbook
gives the same derivation for circular and elliptical motion that Newton first derived in his Principia. The
equivalence of the epicycle theory and gravitational theory has not been realized, and any new discovery that fits in
with the mathematical framework of Newtonian gravity is lauded as a “triumph of the theory of gravitation.” In
reality, it is simply the triumph of fitting curves to the data or minor linear extrapolations – something that had
already been done at least since 2nd century AD. Yet the situation is conceptually identical.

As for problem 1 – the presence of rotational motion – there was no solution provided by Newton to the reasons as
to why all the planets rotate in the same direction. Laplace, and also independently, Kant, suggested that a
primordial nebula started rotating to give it the initial velocity. However, neither bothered with the complication that
there are an infinite series of linear pushes and pulls necessary for maintaining an orbit even for a simple circular or
elliptic motion. It was not as simple as giving an initial jolt to set the whole system running, like a machine. Yet, this
‘explanation’ has stood for 200 years, till today.

Just like the Ptolemaic theory, there had to come a point where the calculations would not fit observation. This point
was reached in several areas, such as that of the motion of the Moon, but one received particular attention at the end
of the 19th century: the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. In order to fill this hole, another theory – the
General Theory of Relativity – was proposed by Einstein. And what was the mathematical difference between
Newton’s law of Gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity? The Relativity theory added a term that depends
on the fourth power of the distance, to the inverse-square law! In other words, acceleration also depends marginally
on 1/R4 instead of just on 1/R2. Hence, this theory did not question the assumptions at all and neither did it have
even the slight empirical backing that Newton had with Kepler’s and Galileo’s laws; instead a new assumption that
gravity is based on the notion of “curved space-time” was simply added to the system. In a nutshell, that is the actual
achievement of General Relativity.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:37 pm

*

The Dead End

In the late 19th century, one of the French mathematicians – Henri Poincaré – had already discovered that many of
the terms being used in the “perturbation” series by mathematicians like Laplace and Lagrange were becoming
infinite for long periods of time, making the system unstable. In simple words, the solutions ‘blow up’ fairly
quickly. He also showed that the general problem of 3 mutually gravitating bodies was insoluble through any
mathematical analysis! Many physicists and mathematicians built up modern “Chaos theory” based on these ideas,
to show simply that one cannot calculate the movements of the planets accurately. Thus began the field of non-linear
dynamics.

In the middle of the 20th century, with computers entering the field, the mathematicians pretty much gave up on
calculating the orbits by themselves and programmed the computer to do it, even though it was mathematically
shown that these orbits were incalculable. They had to be satisfied with approximations or numerical methods (or
“brute force” methods.) The result of it all was that after 300 years, Newtonian/Einsteinian thought lands in the same
spot that Kepler ended: the orbits point to a living or chaotic system. Only now, there is the additional baggage of all
the wrong concepts introduced with regard to “inverse-square law”, “gravitational attraction”, “gravitational mass”
and “curved space-time” along with uncountable number of minor assumptions. In this process, an enormous
amount of human effort was put to derive thousands of terms in equations over centuries. The entire enterprise has
been a wild goose chase – very much like the attempt to calculate the value of “pi” with 100% accuracy.


Moving Forward

It is clear that the only way to get out of the dead end and move forward is to go back to the point of deviation, and
start retracing the steps from where Kepler and Galileo left off. Some researchers have done that, unheralded.

It is seen that many of the objections regarding the lack of understanding of forces for circular motion were already
put forward by Hegel, using his check of philosophical consistency. His philosophical successor, Rudolf Steiner,
was equally critical of the Newtonian approach, and in the early part of the 20th century, gave several new ideas to
carry forward the research into astronomy. For starters, he insisted that no ad-hoc assumptions must be introduced in
the understanding of science, and to stick to the phenomena like Goethe did in his approach to life. Based on that, he
mentioned that only centric forces are no longer applicable for celestial phenomena, but one has to include other
concepts such as forces away from the center and rotating/shearing forces to account for planetary movements. He
also explained that astronomical movements cannot be calculated, but can only be characterized, by identifying
harmonic patterns between living systems and celestial changes systematically. Other complicated shapes like
lemniscates were suggested for study, to determine the mutual movement of the planets and stars. Several
researchers like Lili Kolisko, Ernst Lehrs and Elizabeth Vreede carried forward these suggestions.

Dewey Larson, an American engineer, figured out the reciprocity of inward and outward forces necessary for
astronomical motions, and described it in his book Beyond Newton. He developed the concepts by taking circular,
linear and vibratory movements as the primary movements, and set up an entire system of physical theory
(Reciprocal System) step-by-step in a Hegelian fashion where physical phenomena can be understood without
arbitrary assumptions using nothing but motion (see Nothing But Motion). He predicted Quasar properties before
they were discovered, and also identified that stellar evolution was backwards from what modern astronomy makes
of it. After covering a wide range of phenomena, his researches also led to the conclusion that all phenomena have
natural limits, and also that life has to be included as a component of astronomical phenomena. This takes care of all
the problems with extrapolation that have faced physicists for centuries.

Other researchers have shed additional light on these phenomena. Johannes Schlaf and, recently, Simon Hytten have
discovered several problems with the conventional Copernican viewpoint that do not line up with experience. KVK
Nehru and Bruce Peret have re-evaluated the Reciprocal System to include both linear and rotational motion as
equally primary, solving a dilemma that had been unresolved since the time of Descartes. Peret has determined the
several details of planetary evolution from these standpoints. Miles Mathis has independently detected both the
problems with the conventional explanations for orbital motion as well as the need for an outward force against
gravity, and has also, among other things, shown how Lagrange implicitly assumed it in his equations.

Although these few researchers are plugging along, it is imperative that the entire process of astronomical study be
approached afresh, since very little research has been done on the relationships of cosmic harmonies to life. The
flaws that were propagated over centuries must be recognized for what they are; otherwise astronomy will continue
to get stuck in its own rigid orbit. When it is clear that a fresh foundation of this nature is needed, it is possible to
move forward from the vague notions of ancient astrology and confused notions of modern astronomy to a clear
exposition of the relationship of man to the stars.

Additional Research

Other papers by the current author:
For Problem 1: Importance of Conic Section “size” in the Derivation of Propositions X-XVI in Newton’s Principia
(Book I)
DOWNLOAD LINK : http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20 ... Vijaya.pdf

For Problem 2: Original Form of Kepler’s Third Law and its Misapplication in Propositions XXXII-XXXVII in
Newton’s Principia (Book I)
DOWNLOAD LINK : http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20 ... Vijaya.pdf

For Problem 3: Celestial Dynamics and Rotational Forces in Circular and Elliptical Motions
DOWNLOAD LINK : http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20 ... Forces.pdf
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby Gopi on May 16th, 2017, 3:34 am

Thanks again, Simon and Hoi, for making this available here.

It will be glad to receive any comments/criticisms/suggestions. This may be the only place that I can share these results with a receptive audience.
Gopi
Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 3:00 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby agraposo on May 16th, 2017, 9:09 am

Gopi » 16 May 2017, 04:34 wrote:Thanks again, Simon and Hoi, for making this available here.

It will be glad to receive any comments/criticisms/suggestions. This may be the only place that I can share these results with a receptive audience.

Gopi, as far as I know, there are two sites that serve as repository of controversial, or not standard, papers, which are usually rejected by scientific journals. One is http://vixra.org/ (like arxiv.org but reversed), and the other is http://gsjournal.net/. I prefer this last one, as it contains lots of anti-relativity (Einstein) papers. :D
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby aa5 on May 18th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Thanks Gopi I am really glad to see you have written papers on this subject. I also came across errors in Newton & other very very high profile mathematicians(while also seeing many of their brilliant discoveries).. I am looking forward to reading in detail your arguments and posting my comments afterwards, I just have been ultra busy at work and mentally tired over the last week to spend time on it.

Like you, I have found there is only a handful of people who are even willing to consider these kinds of questions. The vast, vast majority of places online for scientific discussion you would simply be banned. In fact this is the only place I know of you could post this and people would actually honestly consider it, and the owners of the forum would let it go in discussion instead of desperately shutting off the lines of inquiry. Science is said to be trying to disprove hypothesis, but most peoples brains, especially science type people, function the opposite, where they try to 'debunk the debunkers', and cling to their orthodoxy regardless of the arguments.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby agraposo on May 19th, 2017, 3:38 pm

Back in 2013 I was engaged actively discussing in the SSSS thread with Simon, about his solar system model. I was shocked to read that for him the Earth is not moving, but that the Sun rotates around the Earth, as in the Tychonic model. And that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were all a kind of bad people and were all wrong in this theories, and that even Kepler murdered Tycho!

At first I thought that was a distraction from other matters (the media fakery), but because I'm physicist I patienly read all the reasonings exposed in the thread, and I tried to explain why the different models of the solar system were in fact mathematically equivalent, as Kepler had demonstrated in his Astronomia Nova.

Since then, I don't know if those ideas have changed or progressed, so I kindly ask what is the current forum policy regarding these astronomical issues.

Thanks.

Regarding Newton, it can be admitted that he had errors, as every scientist. But to be fair, it should be noted that Einstein was a plagiarist. In fact he copied the equations of General Relativity from David Hilbert, and the previous mathematical work was done by Marcel Grossmann, and that he copied the formula for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury from Paul Gerber. So what is the sense of this thread?
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby aa5 on May 20th, 2017, 3:13 am

The theory of gravity explaining our solar system, can easily be disproved as objects that only had attractive force towards each other would end up smashing into each other, sooner or later.

My university friends tell me that the moon is 'falling' away from the Earth, just perfectly in balance with the pull of the Earth's gravitation. That is just laughable, as even if the moon started out 'falling' away from the Earth, the force of gravitation as explained would first decelerate the moon until it was not moving, and then accelerate the Moon towards the Earth in a straight line, until collision.

But my university educated friends cannot give on this point, as it would mean some guys with no 'official' training speculating on a random forum, has a more advanced understanding of our solar system than our best astronomers and physicists.
Last edited by aa5 on May 20th, 2017, 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby aa5 on May 20th, 2017, 3:47 am

The ideas I have worked out so far.. There must be both an attractive force & a repulsive force acting between the Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is dependent on the distance between the Earth & the Moon.

On Wikipedia it says the Perigee of the Moon is ~362,000 km, and the Apogee is ~405,000km. With the midpoint of its orbit being ~384,000km from the Earth.

Lets start out at the midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from the Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from the Earth beyond 384,000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth(at the Apogee ~405,000km).

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards the Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384,000km once again, but this time going the other way.

As the Moon travels closer to the Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards the Earth. Until at ~362,000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards the Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from the Earth.

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of the Earth for millions or billions of years.


One question I had with my thinking is wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive distances, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of the Earth, and the movement of the Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is my idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.


Another point.. I think to understand something it is a mistake to go to the math first as our university geniuses go to and then miss the dead simple problems in their theories. First develop with words a description of how the system operates, and then with words a theory that explains the observations, and no one can come up with a logical reason that the theory is wrong. Then at that point, develop some math to match the theory.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby agraposo on May 20th, 2017, 11:38 am

aa5, very good points, and without maths!

But there are other threads in this forum to discuss gravity and the solar system. This forum's admins proposed that the Earth rotates but does not move around the Sun. That's why I was asking for a clarification of their current thinking and for the purpose of this thread.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby agraposo on May 20th, 2017, 1:56 pm

Being a fan of the History and Philosophy of Science, specially astronomy and physics (also mathematics and medicine), I think I have read enough to understand the work of authors like Newton, Kepler, Euler, Lagrange and others.

I didn't know about the work of Dewey Larson and the Reciprocal System theory. So I have spent some time reading his works and I can say that it is difficult to find a sentence understandable, and that there is no mathematical reasoning at all, only gibberish, much like Miles Mathis' works.

This is not a final opinion from my part, as I recognize I should study more thoroughly Larson's works, but I can say at this moment that it is very easy to disprove his main argument, that the universe is only motion (accelerated or uniform?), because of d'Alembert's principle, that dynamics can be reduced to statics (no accelerated motion, but equilibrium) (see Lagrange's Mécanique Analytique).

But really, I think all the scientists that propose such new bizarre theories, do not deserve our attention, as long as they do not expose all the lies in today's science (space exploration or nuclear energy for example). But they need a job! Newton can be forgiven because in his times NASA didn't exist. :D
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Newton's Errors (papers by Gopi)

Postby simonshack on May 20th, 2017, 10:17 pm

agraposo » May 20th, 2017, 10:38 am wrote:But there are other threads in this forum to discuss gravity and the solar system. This forum's admins proposed that the Earth rotates but does not move around the Sun. That's why I was asking for a clarification of their current thinking and for the purpose of this thread.

Dear Agraposo,

First off, I wish to sincerely thank you - most belatedly - for your steady contributions in the "SSSS" thread back in 2013, as I timidly submitted my musings and questions concerning the heliocentric Copernican cosmic model. You were the one who kept me 'on the edge' - so to speak - as I tried to make sense of the various, peculiar aberrations of the same. Thanks to your fine and wise efforts of pointing out the potential 'equivalence' between the Copernican model and my fledgling, tychonian-inspired ideas, I truly learned a lot, since you had me digging ever deeper into the vast, nay, colossal body of astronomical observations gathered throughout the centuries by earnest researchers from all over the world.

Secondly, I will just say this much: our Earth does not careen around the Sun at 107,226 km/h. It's the other way round. And Earth is not completely stationary (as Tycho Brahe believed).

Of course, this is only my personal (yet now refined) opinion - yet I can't wait to hear your own opinion of my TYCHOS model - as I finally get down to share it with you - and everyone.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Next

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests