Mathematical physicists are the Modern Pope

[stupidnewton]

Once upon time the earth was considered to be fixed in the centre of the universe. Then the Copernican revolution came along and fixed the sun in the centre of the universe.

 

Now the sun is known to be moving faster than the planets relative to the sun.

 

In deference to their own evidence, physicists, mathematical or not, won't countenance anything that says a fixed sun is the answer to planetary motion and the universe beyond

 

So are mathematical physicists the pope of Galileo's day? A thread on this forum got locked. When all it was there for was to say the discovery of a moving sun means Kepler's three laws have to be done again. And the tides to.

 

Does this forum provide evidence of today's mathematical physicists being the equivalent of the pope of Galileo's day?

 

Sometimes all I need is the air that I breathe and to love you

[DrP]

What has the Pope got to do with it at all? It is clear that our understanding of the universe has developed over the last few hundred years. It continues to develop and scientists continually update existing theories as new evidence is uncovered due to better techniques in observation.

 

Same goes for the atom - our theories and models of the atom have changed massively over hundreds of years and continue to change. What has the Pope got to do with any of it?

[Sensei]

The real knowledge (=science) is based on direct (rarely indirect, typically in astronomy and astrophysics) evidence.
Math equations are derived from experimental data.
Scientists are measuring some physical quantity, and recording it on the list, f.e. how it changes over time.
And try to figure out math equation which would fit above curve.

Anybody can repeat and check law or theory by himself/herself.

And should get exactly the same data (+- some small tolerance),
thus confirming usefulness of math equation in law or theory.

 

There is no dogma, there is no omniscience, in this.

 

You're free to show your models, laws, theories, and they will be challenged against experimental data.

If they will better fit with experimental data, your work will be accepted by scientific community.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Sensei

[swansont]

A thread on this forum got locked. When all it was there for was to say the discovery of a moving sun means Kepler's three laws have to be done again. And the tides to.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Without evidence to back it up, (plus it had a link to a BS external site), which is why it was locked. Which is what can happen when you don't follow the rules (Note that discussing a thread closure here is off-topic, which is also against the rules)

 

So knock it off, and try doing a better job of explaining what you mean by "being the equivalent of the pope of Galileo's day"

[Strange]

When all it was there for was to say the discovery of a moving sun means Kepler's three laws have to be done again. And the tides to.

 

 

I can't see why. Perhaps you could explain (in appropriate mathematical detail).

 

After all, you can still use a Sun-centered coordinate system to calculate the orbits of planets. And an Earth-centered coordinate system to calculate tides.

[stupidnewton]

 

 

I can't see why. Perhaps you could explain (in appropriate mathematical detail).

 

After all, you can still use a Sun-centered coordinate system to calculate the orbits of planets. And an Earth-centered coordinate system to calculate tides.

It's understanding of the physics of the 'orbits' that is the problem. We are a pendulum, not some sort of inertial centripetal object. The trouble with the physics of current schoolbooks is the reliance on where a planet would go if the sun's gravity was absence. It is never absent so the whole idea is a furfhy. Since Galileo we have lived a confusion. It's the sun's inverse square law that is persevering. Not the planets at some sort of tangent to a fictitious closed orbit.

 

Without doubt now that we know the sun is moving, all of Kepler's three laws of planetary motion have to be revisited. This diagram ignores the angle of the solar system to the path of the sun. Which is supposed to be about 60 degrees. That doesn't alter the fact that the planet's are pendulums. Just means the 250 on this diagram will be less. And the 190 more.

Should add I suppose the fact that mathematical physicists are unapproachable about Galileo's error makes them the pope of Galileo's day.

Should also add that the reason of a planet's rhythm with the sun is the fact that the direction of fall of a planet towards the sun orbits a planet's galactic path once a cycle. That's the growing circle you see on the diagram.

 

The mistake of the Copernican revolution and the right answer as well are as plain as day. Anybody can see them. Even the moderator of this forum at a rough guess.

[DrKrettin]

Since Galileo we have lived a confusion. It's the sun's inverse square law that is persevering.

 

.

 

You are the one living in confusion. Your post is so daft that it's hard to know where to start, or why anybody should even bother responding. If you are so bothered about the planet's galactic path, what about the motion of the galaxy itself? And the motion of the local group of galaxies? Relative to what?

 

Oh, and by the way - a planet's orbit relative to a sun is a conic section, not because of an inverse square law, but because of a force towards the sun and a conservation of angular momentum. Did you read that word "relative"?

[swansont]

It's understanding of the physics of the 'orbits' that is the problem. We are a pendulum, not some sort of inertial centripetal object. The trouble with the physics of current schoolbooks is the reliance on where a planet would go if the sun's gravity was absence. It is never absent so the whole idea is a furfhy. Since Galileo we have lived a confusion. It's the sun's inverse square law that is persevering. Not the planets at some sort of tangent to a fictitious closed orbit.

 

Without doubt now that we know the sun is moving, all of Kepler's three laws of planetary motion have to be revisited. This diagram ignores the angle of the solar system to the path of the sun. Which is supposed to be about 60 degrees. That doesn't alter the fact that the planet's are pendulums. Just means the 250 on this diagram will be less. And the 190 more.

Should add I suppose the fact that mathematical physicists are unapproachable about Galileo's error makes them the pope of Galileo's day.

Should also add that the reason of a planet's rhythm with the sun is the fact that the direction of fall of a planet towards the sun orbits a planet's galactic path once a cycle. That's the growing circle you see on the diagram.

 

The mistake of the Copernican revolution and the right answer as well are as plain as day. Anybody can see them. Even the moderator of this forum at a rough guess.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations

 

You are not explaining things as clearly as you probably think you are — what is "obvious" to you is not obvious to others.

 

If a planet is a pendulum, where is the fixed point of its rotation and why is it fixed there? What is the source of the force that causes the oscillation? If you don't provide a model to support your claim, this will be a short conversation.

 

[Lord Antares]

I think what he doesn't understand is that even though the sun is moving through space with a great speed, so are the planets, so no laws need to be revised at all. This is elementary. But wait:

 

 

Now the sun is known to be moving faster than the planets relative to the sun.

 

What? How can you even say that? Do you understand that we would have moved out of the sun's orbit by now if that was the case? If the sun was moving faster than the earth, the earth-sun revolution wouldn't last for 365 days. In fact, we wouldn't have an earth-sun revolution at all.

 

If something is revolving around something else that is going at a great speed, it must be going at the same speed. (how else would it catch up and rotate around it?)

So, in fact, you are claiming that the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, right?

[Strange]

Well, sometimes the Earth is ahead of the Sun and sometimes behind, as the Sun orbits the galaxy. So obviously, sometimes the Earth is moving faster and sometimes slower.

[Lord Antares]

Yes, obviously but it doesn't change the calculation. He seems to be implying that the sun is constantly speeding away from the earth in such a manner that Kepler's laws of planetary motion don't apply anymore, which is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter if both the sun and the earth are standing still or if they are speeding through space. That motion is relative and does not change any part of the calculations.

[Strange]

Yes, obviously but it doesn't change the calculation. He seems to be implying that the sun is constantly speeding away from the earth in such a manner that Kepler's laws of planetary motion don't apply anymore, which is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter if both the sun and the earth are standing still or if they are speeding through space. That motion is relative and does not change any part of the calculations.

 

 

Exactly. The OP should change his name to stupidgalileo if he disagrees with that.

[Delta1212]

I think what he doesn't understand is that even though the sun is moving through space with a great speed, so are the planets, so no laws need to be revised at all. This is elementary. But wait:

 

 

 

What? How can you even say that? Do you understand that we would have moved out of the sun's orbit by now if that was the case? If the sun was moving faster than the earth, the earth-sun revolution wouldn't last for 365 days. In fact, we wouldn't have an earth-sun revolution at all.

 

If something is revolving around something else that is going at a great speed, it must be going at the same speed. (how else would it catch up and rotate around it?)

So, in fact, you are claiming that the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, right?

 

While his statement is incorrect, you are criticizing it for the wrong reason. There is no reason that the sun cannot be moving faster than the planets are moving relative to the sun.

 

For the same reason that, if I walk along the center aisle of a train going full speed, the train is moving faster than I am moving relative to the train.

 

The mistake is in not defining what the sun is moving relative to. You can give it any arbitrary velocity you would like based on the coordinate system you use, and it's speed could easily be significantly higher than the speed of the planets when measured with respect to the sun.

[Lord Antares]

I understand what you mean, but doesn't his statement still not make sense?

If you are within that train, you are still bound by its velocity. No matter what he meant the motion be relative to, the planets still make identical revolutions around the sun and their average distances from the sun throughout the year are still the same (as evidenced by the length and ratio of days and nights, seasons, etc.), so no laws need to be altered.

[Strange]

Again, I think you are exactly right. It is the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun (in a heliocentric frame of reference) that means it sometimes goes faster and slower than the Sun.

 

The OP's problem seems to be that if the you accept one frame of reference (e.g. the galactic) then all the rest must be wrong. Whereas, in reality, you choose whichever is most convenient.

[stupidnewton]

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations

 

You are not explaining things as clearly as you probably think you are — what is "obvious" to you is not obvious to others.

 

If a planet is a pendulum, where is the fixed point of its rotation and why is it fixed there? What is the source of the force that causes the oscillation? If you don't provide a model to support your claim, this will be a short conversation.

 

The fulcrum is the sun and its moving. Leave it in two dimensions to get the basics. A pendulum is something that gains momentum. And then loses momentum. Then gains momentum. And the loses momentum. And so on. You can see that the earth is doing that in two dimensions. .

 

The thing to address if you want to get on the right level is the fact that Galileo's original idea had the planets ascending. Any straight line motion at a right angle to an axis towards the centre of the sun is an ascent. Where does the force come from to lift the planets while they fall to the sun is the question you need to answer if you believe Galileo's inertial idea makes sense.

 

That's an obvious error to me and it should be obvious to any sixteen year old.

 

If you can credibly deal with that mistake of Galileo's, take it from there.

 

I think what he doesn't understand is that even though the sun is moving through space with a great speed, so are the planets, so no laws need to be revised at all. This is elementary. But wait:

 

 

 

What? How can you even say that? Do you understand that we would have moved out of the sun's orbit by now if that was the case? If the sun was moving faster than the earth, the earth-sun revolution wouldn't last for 365 days. In fact, we wouldn't have an earth-sun revolution at all.

 

If something is revolving around something else that is going at a great speed, it must be going at the same speed. (how else would it catch up and rotate around it?)

So, in fact, you are claiming that the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, right?

Sun speed 220 km/sec. Earth speed relative to the sun 30 km/sec. The sun is moving faster than what the earth is relative to the sun.

worry about whether or not the earth's galactic motion is pendulous or not. . In two dimensions that diagram should give you an exact picture of what is being said.

 

Please address Galileo's inertial ascent if you can but am saying the earth doesn't orbit the sun. The difference is subtle but the earth orbits the motion of the sun. And that's not speculation. According to modern astronomy, it's fact.

 

Well, sometimes the Earth is ahead of the Sun and sometimes behind, as the Sun orbits the galaxy. So obviously, sometimes the Earth is moving faster and sometimes slower.

That's exactly right and exactly what you should have learnt as teenager.

 

Yes, obviously but it doesn't change the calculation. He seems to be implying that the sun is constantly speeding away from the earth in such a manner that Kepler's laws of planetary motion don't apply anymore, which is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter if both the sun and the earth are standing still or if they are speeding through space. That motion is relative and does not change any part of the calculations.

Is that diagram not appearing or something. You should have a diagram in front of you that shows it changes the nature of the relative motion. Instead of being a closed circuit of the sun, the relative motion is a series of elongated inverting curves.

 

Just so obvious that axis towards the centre of the sun i.e the sun's gravity, orbits the earth's galactic motion as often as the earth "orbits" the sun. We all should be learning that at junior school.

Yes, obviously but it doesn't change the calculation. He seems to be implying that the sun is constantly speeding away from the earth in such a manner that Kepler's laws of planetary motion don't apply anymore, which is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter if both the sun and the earth are standing still or if they are speeding through space. That motion is relative and does not change any part of the calculations.

 

It is the understanding of Kepler's laws. For instance where do you say the momentum of a planet originates?

[Strange]

That's exactly right and exactly what you should have learnt as teenager.

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

Sun speed 220 km/sec. Earth speed relative to the sun 30 km/sec. The sun is moving faster than what the earth is relative to the sun.

 

So what? You are choosing two different frames of reference to compare.

 

That is like saying: speed of a car 50km/h; speed of the Earth 30km/sec. Therefore we need to rethink fuel consumption figures.

[stupidnewton]

 

 

Why?

 

 

So what? You are choosing two different frames of reference to compare.

 

That is like saying: speed of a car 50km/h; speed of the Earth 30km/sec. Therefore we need to rethink fuel consumption figures.

You can't seriously be asking why you should be taught the truth at school. Do you wish for lies to be taught in schools?

 

In your analogy, why would you need to rethink fuel consumption. The earth's inverse square law is in between the 50 km/h and the well, a little more than 30 km/sec. Fuel consumption is related to the car's weight. On the moon it would use less etc. Unless the speed change of the inverse square law is significant, irrelevant.

[Strange]

You can't seriously be asking why you should be taught the truth at school. Do you wish for lies to be taught in schools?

 

 

It is not a lie.

 

 

 

In your analogy, why would you need to rethink fuel consumption.

 

That is exactly the point. Switching frames of reference doesn't invalidate Kepler's laws, either.

 

 

 

The earth's inverse square law is in between the 50 km/h and the well, a little more than 30 km/sec.

 

How can an inverse square law be a speed?

 

Your first attempt to introduce some maths to support your idea doesn't make much sense.

[swansont]

The fulcrum is the sun and its moving. Leave it in two dimensions to get the basics. A pendulum is something that gains momentum. And then loses momentum. Then gains momentum. And the loses momentum. And so on. You can see that the earth is doing that in two dimensions. .

 

While the direction of motion is constantly changing, the magnitude is roughly constant. If we were gaining and losing momentum as you describe, we could measure it. What experimental evidence do you have to show this?

 

The thing to address if you want to get on the right level is the fact that Galileo's original idea had the planets ascending. Any straight line motion at a right angle to an axis towards the centre of the sun is an ascent. Where does the force come from to lift the planets while they fall to the sun is the question you need to answer if you believe Galileo's inertial idea makes sense.

There is no "lift". I can't fathom the confusion involved that yields such nonsense.

 

That's an obvious error to me and it should be obvious to any sixteen year old.

 

If you can credibly deal with that mistake of Galileo's, take it from there.

Galileo is not the final word on orbital mechanics. The concept he got right is that we orbit the sun.

 

Please address Galileo's inertial ascent if you can but am saying the earth doesn't orbit the sun. The difference is subtle but the earth orbits the motion of the sun. And that's not speculation. According to modern astronomy, it's fact.

 

And the motion of the sun can be ignored, and the system analyzed in the frame of reference of the sun. Also according to modern astronomy.

 

[stupidnewton]

Will address your questions, swansont, but would say you are making the same mistake about descent that all of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and Einstein have made. In the earth's case, you think it is along an axis towards the centre of the earth. If that's what you think descent is you are categorically wrong. It is a curve around the galaxy. Pick up anything, a pen, whatever. Drop it. It's descent path was not the metre or so between your hand and the floor. That's the mistake of a mathematical physicist. Its descent path is a curve around the galaxy. To understand this you have to stop using arbitrary or fixed reference frames.

 

What you have to do is see the motion of an inverse square law and descent in the one frame. I know this is completely new to you and your mind will balk at going there. But if you can get your self there you may well see the key to solar system. And that key is descent is a motion relative to its cause. Einstein doesn't seem to have know this. But he should have if he was Einstein.

 

 

All descents are a curve through space. The 9.8 m/s/s acceleration you observe when you drop something does not happen along a straight line pointed at the centre of the earth. 9.8 m/s/s you observe happens along a path as appears here. Which is a curve around a moving earth.

 

While the direction of motion is constantly changing, the magnitude is roughly constant. If we were gaining and losing momentum as you describe, we could measure it. What experimental evidence do you have to show this?

 

The magnitude is not roughly constant. Have a look at the the two dimensional diagram of the earth year again. It rises fy a factor 60 km/sec over a six month period. Then falls by a factor of 60 km/sec over the next six month period. There is no experimental evidence that proves the heliocentric model of the solar system. Only observations. The way you pose the question is like those who rejected the motion of the earth in Galileo's time because the trees weren't bending back as the earth moved forward.

 

There is no "lift". I can't fathom the confusion involved that yields such nonsense.

 

Totally agree that there in no lift. But the Newton first law of motion direction takes a planet away from the sun if it's followed. If it's not followed in the fixed inverse square law theories of planetary motion, the planet's plummet into the sun. The Newton first law of motion as applied to fixed inverse square law physics, is an ascent. Thus, to be followed, would require a lifting force. Are you saying the Galilean perseverance vector I put on the first diagram isn't real?

 

Galileo is not the final word on orbital mechanics. The concept he got right is that we orbit the sun.

 

Convenient as it might be to say that Galileo got the fact that we orbit the sun right, he didn't. We orbit the motion of the sun. As already mentioned, the difference is subtle but also of significant consequence. You are entitled to you convenience. But it's not a truth.

 

And the motion of the sun can be ignored, and the system analyzed in the frame of reference of the sun. Also according to modern astronomy.

 

You aren't making sense here. Are you saying astronomy per se should ignore discovery? Astronomy discovered that a fixed sun was a Copernican mistake.

 

​'Finally we shall place the sun at the centre of the Universe. All this is suggested by the systematic procession of events and the harmony of the whole universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, ‘with both eyes open.’ Nicholas Copernicus, 1473 - 1543.

 

What you are saying is more or less like saying the discovery of the motion of the earth could have been ignored. Also, with your attitude that the discovery of the motion is sun irrelevant to mankind, you want to remember that Tycho Brahe was drawn to astronomy by an accurate prediction of a total lunar eclipse. The prediction was made from the belief that the sun orbits the earth. So everything could be worked out and predicted from ignoring the motion of the earth if you follow through what you are saying.

 

How can an inverse square law be a speed?

 

If I confused you Strange sorry. Inverse square laws are moving and at speeds much faster than the descents they cause. That much faster speed has to be taken into account to understand a fundamental of descent due to gravity, that fundamental being all descents within the solar system are elongated curves around a galaxy. Some of these curves carry a loss of momentum. Some a gain of momentum. You add up the curves and the gains and losses of momentum and you can start to understand planetary motion properly.

 

 

[Strange]

All descents are a curve through space. The 9.8 m/s/s acceleration you observe when you drop something does not happen along a straight line pointed at the centre of the earth. 9.8 m/s/s you observe happens along a path as appears here. Which is a curve around a moving earth.

 

 

While true, this is utterly pointless. After all, you can just choose an Earth-centred frame of reference and ignore the motion of the Earth through space.

 

 

 

Inverse square laws are moving and at speeds much faster than the descents they cause.

 

Inverse square laws don't move. Or even involve movement.

 

Where is the speed in: [latex]f = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] ?

 

You clearly don't understand as much as you think you do.

[stupidnewton]

 

 

While true, this is utterly pointless. After all, you can just choose an Earth-centred frame of reference and ignore the motion of the Earth through space.

 

 

Inverse square laws don't move. Or even involve movement.

 

Where is the speed in: [latex]f = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] ?

 

You clearly don't understand as much as you think you do.

If the earth is moving, it's inverse square law is moving strange. Common sense, etc. You are pretty much living back in the world of Aristotle and Ptolemy the way you are ignoring the motion of the earth.

 

That's not the inverse square law you have provided. It's Sir Isaac Newton's stupid law of mutual of gravitation. This is way he probably came up with it.

 

Probably the biggest mistake Newton made was presuming the moon pulls an ocean of the earth. It doesn't. The arithmetic of opposite directions of inverse square laws says the opposing directions of earth and moon inverse square laws causes an ocean on earth to weigh less. If you do your analysis properly, you can see the moon isn't attracting an ocean at all.

[swansont]

If the earth is moving, it's inverse square law is moving

This makes even less sense than most of what you've posted.

[Strange]

If the earth is moving, it's inverse square law is moving strange.

 

 

How can an equation move? Is all arithmetic moving as well?