whiskers

Remember the It's weird, alright. If you have two spaceships traveling at the same speed, and they are satisfied that their clocks are synchronized, and then they decide that when their clocks both strike 8 they will give identical puffs of thrust out the back, thus accelerating by the same amount - after 8, the observers in the ships will no longer find that their clocks are synchronized with each other. It seems so odd, since as far as they are concerned they did everything completely symmetrically.

Most (all?) pseudoscience has come into existence since the beginning of the scientific method, and copies it, attempting to gain the legitimacy of scientific methods and results. Astrology is very different. It is based upon traditions (and some would say observations) which predate science. It therefore does not need to presume to have a specific scienc-y-sounding mechanism.

So true. If you ask 6 economists, you'll get 7 opinions. Economists have predicted 8 out of the last 5 recessions.

http://www.physicstutorials.org/home/mechanics/1d-kinematics/relative-motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

Fooled? Maybe not. You know what they say: "motion is relative."

The western astrological tradition is well-aware of the differences between tropical and sidereal coordinates. Gemini is simply used as a name for a particular segment of space which used to house the constellation Gemini. The whole rap about how tropical astrology "didn't keep up" is a straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology Interesting example of how detailed the issue goes: http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic2_e.htm

In curved space-time, motion in a straight line becomes falling downward. http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/demomanual/modern_physics/principal_of_equivalence_and_general_relativity/curved_spacetime.html

Causal connection or no, western astrology uses the 360 degrees of celestial longitude, which begins at the vernal equinox point, even though the *names* of the signs derive from a time when the imaginative/arbitrary constellations matched up with the seasonal framework.

If I am on an accelerating rocket, I would measure all other local bodies to be accelerating in the opposite direction, with no force to explain their acceleration. If I am merely on a coasting rocket, I would measure all other local bodies to be coasting in the opposite direction, which needs no force to explain.

The issue is not absolute disproof - which is impossible. The issue is what is worth pursuing or worrying about. Without any indication of a tiger in the room, can I state conclusively that there no tiger? No I cannot. Substitute snake or scorpion and you'll see what I mean.

Do you understand that all motion is relative? And that all physics works the same if a constant velocity is added to all particles?

Some people think they have a method that does work. Probably most are deluding themselves. However, it might be that some have something that hasn't been tested, or simply couldn't meet the high bar of the kinds of tests which have been performed.

Fun fact: there are people out there doing heliocentric astrology. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. You could try to start a fire with wet sticks all day long and it wouldn't prove "making fire doesn't work" - certainly you can point to all of the tests which have failed to show any validity and discourage people from pursuing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/may/18/research.highereducation In the western world, the stars don't play much of a part in astrology. Western astrology has signs based upon the seasonal quadrants, not positions of distant stars. In any event, the distance of the stars doesn't prevent them to be visible to us. It is not completely impossible to seek some type of influence there.

If they are point masses and have elastic collision, the video of what happens after collision should be same as reversing the film on what happens before.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision

In the 2 body problem, if you just set the bodies down, they'll be attracted toward another and then collide. If either one has some velocity component perpendicular to the line between them, there will be one or another type of relationship depending on the eccentricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity It might be Parabolic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trajectory Hyperbolic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory or an elliptical orbit, one special type of which is a perfect circle this page is nice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem Do Jupiter and Sun orbit their common barycenter? Technically no because of the perturbations of other bodies in the SS, but they would if they were alone.

I would recommend "Asimov on Astronomy".

The average of two numbers is defined to be halfway between them. So it is with the Sun/Jupiter barycenter - it is *defined* to be the center of mass of both bodies, and the center of their mutual orbit. There is no way to verify or disprove it - you can only verify vs disprove the way that you have calculated its position.

Centrifugal forces "Even though the reactive centrifugal is rarely used in analyses in the physics literature, the concept is applied within some mechanical engineering concepts." You need to understand that different models are used to solve different problems. Motion is relative. Bodies attract one another, there is nothing going on at any barycenter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Angular_momentum_and_energy "The Moon moves farther away from Earth (+38.247±0.004 mm/y), so its potential energy (in Earth's gravity well) increases. It stays in orbit, and from Kepler's 3rd law it follows that its angular velocity actually decreases, so the tidal action on the Moon actually causes an angular deceleration, i.e. a negative acceleration (-25.858±0.003 "/century2) of its rotation around Earth. The actual speed of the Moon also decreases. Although its kinetic energy decreases, its potential energy increases by a larger amount." There is no centripetal force in the standard model. You use gravity to determine the motions of the bodies. If you are running into trouble using the more general terms, disregard them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force

Surely, centrifugal forces don't come into play in a discussion of orbital dynamics. When modeling the solar system, the primary forces are gravitational interactions - the rest is some solar wind and some relativistic corrections.

I also favor discovering things without using the senses. Let's continue this conversation telepathically, shall we?

A machine could be built which would *increase* Earth's gravity - it would simply suck matter from space and cram it into the Earth. Doesn't science get any points for that?

We "say" they are orbiting a common barycenter. Also, as per the gif, taken by a satellite, we "see" them orbiting a common barycenter. I don't think you understand that motion is relative, and that an orbit is built up (integrated) from instantaneous attractions. The orbit isn't "magic" and the center of the orbit isn't magic.

Once you get into this stuff you have to really have a solid grounding in motion being relative. A lot of physics involves "accounting" quantities which will deceive you if you don't realize that the numbers come out differently in different frames of reference. One spaceship coasts past another one in space. Each pilot feels himself not to be moving and the other one appears to be moving. Each therefore computes a zero kinetic energy and zero momentum for himself and a positive value for each of these quantities for the other guy. Ok? The Sun is very closely at one focus of the ellipse for each planet's orbit - due to gravitational attraction. If you were coming in from outside the SS, looking at the bodies, you would find the SSB at the center of the orbiting bodies - due to inertial frames.

Nothing is moved by the SSB. It is a mathematical point, such as "the geographic center of the contiguous United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_center_of_the_contiguous_United_States It exerts no influence on anything else. If you are out away from 2 bodies - such as Pluto & its moon Charon, the center of their circling appears as the barycenter, because presumably you are in or close to an inertial frame. You understand that all motion is relative, right? http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20150212