At the energy exchange level, Joseph's Fourier's greenhouse logic would be right and wrong. An increase in terrestrial infrared radiation absorbed on the way to what we call outer space would cause extra kinetic energy within the earth's atmosphere (would cause a hotter lower atmosphere). The impasse current greenhouse advocates face is the emission of terrestrial radiation is not observed to slow down molecular movement. That is absorption of incoming ultraviolet radiation by molecules is observed to simultaneously increase infrared radiation and molecular movement. Current greenhouse calculations are based on the emission of infrared radiation being the reducer of molecular movement on earth (after it has arrived, the remover of the sun's energy from the earth).
The way the atmosphere loses internal kinetic energy is going to be as work done against the earth's inverse square law.
For a rotating planet like the earth, this is observable with the atmosphere shrinking at night without the energy causing the expansion during the day appearing in another form as the cooling occurs.
With respect of the axiom about energy being immutable, the axiom has no detailed articulated account of limbo energy (potential energy). For example the flag on the moon lost 5/6th of its limbo energy between blast off from earth and being planted on the moon. Without a planned return trip, that lost limbo energy is unaccounted for. Also, with respect of mathematical earth physics dialogue about stars burning out, they would not be expected to. The expectation would be that radiation is the passage of an electron through space converting space into radiated particles as the electron advances. The expected birth point of the energy we receive on earth from the sun is about eight minutes ago. Also helium sinks in hydrogen. Which plausibly indicates fusion leads to fission.
The clue to the mistake in current greenhouse calculations is cooling is immediate when a cloud passes over and blocks the sun rays from reaching the earth's surface. This immediate slowing of molecular movement beneath a passing cloud is a result of a sudden lack of incoming solar radiation, not an immediate surge of outgoing terrestrial radiation. Thus the current greenhouse calculation question looking for its answer is why do we feel like putting more clothes on when a cloud passes over?
The way the atmosphere loses internal kinetic energy is going to be as work done against the earth's inverse square law.
For a rotating planet like the earth, this is observable with the atmosphere shrinking at night without the energy causing the expansion during the day appearing in another form as the cooling occurs.
With respect of the axiom about energy being immutable, the axiom has no detailed articulated account of limbo energy (potential energy). For example the flag on the moon lost 5/6th of its limbo energy between blast off from earth and being planted on the moon. Without a planned return trip, that lost limbo energy is unaccounted for. Also, with respect of mathematical earth physics dialogue about stars burning out, they would not be expected to. The expectation would be that radiation is the passage of an electron through space converting space into radiated particles as the electron advances. The expected birth point of the energy we receive on earth from the sun is about eight minutes ago. Also helium sinks in hydrogen. Which plausibly indicates fusion leads to fission.
The clue to the mistake in current greenhouse calculations is cooling is immediate when a cloud passes over and blocks the sun rays from reaching the earth's surface. This immediate slowing of molecular movement beneath a passing cloud is a result of a sudden lack of incoming solar radiation, not an immediate surge of outgoing terrestrial radiation. Thus the current greenhouse calculation question looking for its answer is why do we feel like putting more clothes on when a cloud passes over?
Amateur as they are, the messages require school teachers deciding if a simpleton should be part of their education standards. That's the reason of the videos. Stress that's the filming chair and without a virtual background for a prop, nothing. Fell in love with virtual backgrounds during this pandemic. With respect of the pandemic, a vaccine has little chance of coming out of Einstein's theories of relativity.
Another beginning note. Getting the motion of the sun taught at school is the principle objective. The other objective is to get anyone curious about why we observe like tides on direct opposite sides of the earth to consider Sir Isaac Newton's third law across the centre of the earth as the reason. To every force there is an equal and opposite force is that law of physics.
The last beginning note is the fundamental belief is this planet is akin to a miracle. Good luck with the 24 hour topic.
George Kingston. Regular boomer simpleton.
Another beginning note. Getting the motion of the sun taught at school is the principle objective. The other objective is to get anyone curious about why we observe like tides on direct opposite sides of the earth to consider Sir Isaac Newton's third law across the centre of the earth as the reason. To every force there is an equal and opposite force is that law of physics.
The last beginning note is the fundamental belief is this planet is akin to a miracle. Good luck with the 24 hour topic.
George Kingston. Regular boomer simpleton.
Copernican revolution physics has been rewritten. By a simpleton.
The principle Newtonian mistakes of physics being basing planetary motion on a fixed sun and then Sir Isaac Newton's presumption about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. What the physics conceals is the Newton third law tidal role the centre of the earth plays and also a moving gravity field/inverse square law solution to planetary motion. And whatever else follows understanding that descents in moving gravity fields are curved motions and the undoing of Sir Isaac's mistake about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe.
The beginning note. If physics professors were approachable about Sir Isaac Newton's child like mistakes of physics, this web page would not exist. The rudiments of correct solutions to the tides and planetary motion would have entered common standards some thirty years ago. Instead, at this later date, we have a simpleton in his late sixties with his heart half in it endeavouring to do what they would do if they were honest brokers of education.
The principle Newtonian mistakes of physics being basing planetary motion on a fixed sun and then Sir Isaac Newton's presumption about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. What the physics conceals is the Newton third law tidal role the centre of the earth plays and also a moving gravity field/inverse square law solution to planetary motion. And whatever else follows understanding that descents in moving gravity fields are curved motions and the undoing of Sir Isaac's mistake about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe.
The beginning note. If physics professors were approachable about Sir Isaac Newton's child like mistakes of physics, this web page would not exist. The rudiments of correct solutions to the tides and planetary motion would have entered common standards some thirty years ago. Instead, at this later date, we have a simpleton in his late sixties with his heart half in it endeavouring to do what they would do if they were honest brokers of education.
A few centuries later, Sir Isaac's dilemma (about how gravity constantly reaches between masses) led to an Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light was the new thinking of Albert's time. Therefore gravity would not act instantaneously. This allowed time into gravity and a 'space-time' curvature to be mathematically discussed around bodies like the earth and sun. Sir Isaac had left gravity at 'I don't know how'. In endeavours to explain accelerations towards mass, a 'space-time' curvature was now being considered as part of Sir Isaac's lack of understanding of an in between masses 'drawing' conveyance.
Albert had been advised by mentors not to challenge Sir Isaac's mutual formula. The inverse square law part and the existence of a gravitation constant were well proven. Following this advice, Albert presumed the basis of Sir Isaac's law to be the explanation of the universe at large.
Simple arithmetical analysis shows Sir Isaac was originally underpinning his logic on an opposite direction oversight. If picked up, 'readers' of Sir Isaac, like Albert Einstein, would have been entering Sir Isaac's 'gravity' knowledge gap (about how the gravity of the universe could constantly work through an apparent vacuum) from a discontinuous inverse square law perspective.
A past student has rewritten Copernican revolution physics. The principle Newtonian mistakes were basing planetary motion on a fixed sun and then Sir Isaac Newton's presumption about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. What was being secluded was the Newton third law tidal role the centre of the earth plays and also a moving gravity field/inverse square law solution to planetary motion.
(The videos are low quality. Coupled with the written word and diagrams, they should be adequate to enable a decision about desirability or otherwise of their maker as a classroom influence. Hopefully the web page will inspire the making of high quality on topic videos.)
George Kingston. Simpleton able to understand the junk within Newton laws of physics.
The Copernican revolution is the transition from teaching the earth is fixed in the centre of the universe to suggesting and then teaching the sun as a celestial body fixed in the centre of the universe.
Moving sun begins the job of adding planetary motion around the sun to the motion of the sun. Lateral tide calculations explains afresh why we observe equal and opposite high and low tides.
The last three topics are mainly speculation. The fourth and sixth ones undo previous schoolbook falsehoods. Those of mutual gravitation and inertial motion.
The last three topics are mainly speculation. The fourth and sixth ones undo previous schoolbook falsehoods. Those of mutual gravitation and inertial motion.
Futuristic advice and futuristic advice only. While paying homage to the past, future educationalists putting 'of the fixed sun era' under any number of the portraits that adorn institute hallways would give education a fresh start.
Relative to the centre of the galaxy, the distance the sun travels in a Neptune year = 1 solar system unit.............many medical heroes and heroines since this contagious outbreak. At the start the mainland Chinese doctors getting the human to human transmission message through to Taiwan doctors need recognizing as early ones.
The law of momentum is....
In its direction of travel, unhindered momentum is a uniform vector.
The law of momentum change is.....
The momentum change of a body occurs in direct proportion of a net applied force, in inverse proportion to the magnitude of the body and in the direction of the net applied force.
The law of force is
To every force there is an equal and opposite force.
The inverse square law of fall rate diminish is...
The rate of fall towards a spherical celestial body decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the body.
Earth's gravity + inertia sophistry is compounded by three hundred years of teaching an apple attracts the earth. That mistake prohibits understanding the equal and opposite tidal explanation going on a little over 6,000 kilometres beneath our feet.
Symbolized by the yellow vector (above), the correct answer is the planets are falling towards a moving point. The sun. To fall from A, the planets would first have to ascend.
Traditional earth schoolbooks are based on a fixed sun mistake. The caused problem is a planetary motion explanation requiring an intermittently inactive solar gravity field.
On the other side of these schoolbook errors lies unheralded prima facie evidence of a relationship between adjacent gravity field turn rates and day lengths. Coupled with the known ratios between the inner three planets, the similar rotation rates of outer adjacent planets would be an unlikely coincidence.
Consideration of the validity of the basic premise Sir Isaac was building from is yet to happen. Which is....
How inverse square laws can physically or mathematically extend through each other to reach the rest of the universe.
Or, as appears in Sir Isaac's formula, how every two inverse square laws in the universe amalgamate into a single two directional inverse square law.
*
Through the ages up until the present, the high tide under the moon has been a source of confusion. It appears that a high tide under the moon must mean the moon is pulling the earth.
Also explaining why we observe a high tide under the moon, subtraction of earth and moon inverse square law magnitudes says this is a misapprehension. The moon is not 'pulling' the earth at all.
Sir Isaac Newton's errant mutual gravitation formula is what stands in the way of this subtraction being educationally recognized as the basic solution to the high tide under the moon.
Mathematical physics gives the impression of being a think tank working out the how and the why of the universe. From that perspective the discipline is a scam based on an astronomical mistake. The one of Nicholas Copernicus fixing the sun in the centre of the universe.
In deference to the world as it is, modern astronomers ignore or underplay the implications of the mistake. The implications are one of Sir Isaac Newton's laws of physics is plain wrong. Another is not what it is made out to be. A third does not fit in a law of motion category.
The law of momentum is....
In its direction of travel, the product of a body's mass and velocity is uniformly conserved.
The law of momentum change is.....
The momentum change of a body occurs in direct proportion of a net applied force, in inverse proportion to the magnitude of the body and in the direction of the net applied force.
The law of force is
To every force there is an equal and opposite force.
The inverse square law of fall rate diminish is...
The rate of fall towards a spherical celestial body decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the body.
The classroom correction is announcing motion as momentum. What's absent from the classroom is mutual 'gravitation'.
From there the mathematical physics think tank can start again with the how and why of the universe.
The problem with the sun being fixed anywhere is the direction of A below (tendency of a planet without the influence of the sun's gravity) is an ascending motion. The base problem with this schoolbook explanation of planetary motion is the sun's gravity always exists.
In deference to the world as it is, modern astronomers ignore or underplay the implications of the mistake. The implications are one of Sir Isaac Newton's laws of physics is plain wrong. Another is not what it is made out to be. A third does not fit in a law of motion category.
The law of momentum is....
In its direction of travel, the product of a body's mass and velocity is uniformly conserved.
The law of momentum change is.....
The momentum change of a body occurs in direct proportion of a net applied force, in inverse proportion to the magnitude of the body and in the direction of the net applied force.
The law of force is
To every force there is an equal and opposite force.
The inverse square law of fall rate diminish is...
The rate of fall towards a spherical celestial body decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the body.
The classroom correction is announcing motion as momentum. What's absent from the classroom is mutual 'gravitation'.
From there the mathematical physics think tank can start again with the how and why of the universe.
The problem with the sun being fixed anywhere is the direction of A below (tendency of a planet without the influence of the sun's gravity) is an ascending motion. The base problem with this schoolbook explanation of planetary motion is the sun's gravity always exists.
Can mathematical physics be put back in his box and allow the centre column see the light of day? Who knows. It's just something that needs doing.
The last three topics are mainly speculation. The professor ones are corrections of professor allowed mistakes. Moving sun and simple tides carry the obvious answers.
The image below is Fat Pig at about the age of seeing the professors of the world needed critical correcting. Good professors should understand that, in a democracy, they are not above scrutiny.
Something straight. Fat Pig is not a genius. When the physics of planetary motion and also the tides were taught, a baby boomer schoolkid was well into feeling lucky to have been born on this side of knowledge about the earth being in orbit of a star. To have been living when the earth was being taught as being fixed in the centre of the universe would not have been unfortunate. Geniuses can best say what they are.
F.P.
That's an undoer a good fifty years ago. Any schoolkid not blinded by academia at the time can see through the false tidal and planetary motion vectors that are taught and one did. These days these false vectors are hiding the rotating gravity field disposition of looking at day lengths.
Consideration of the validity of the basic premise Sir Isaac was building his algebra from is yet to happen. Which is....
How inverse square laws can either physically or mathematically extend through each other to reach the rest of the universe.
Or, as appears in Sir Isaac's formula, how every two inverse square laws in the universe amalgamate into a single two directional inverse square law.
Including Sir Isaac and Albert Einstein, through the ages up until the present the high tide under the moon has been tricking everybody into thinking the moon 'pulls' the earth.
Showing hos shoddy
That high tide seems to be simple physical evidence of the moon's gravity field subtracting from the earth's gravity field in some way to cause an ocean on the earth to weigh less and thus be a high tide under the moon. When you do the actual subtractions you find that only the smaller of an adjacent pair of bodies accelerates towards the larger.
The converse is a misapprehension. The larger is neither accelerating towards or being weighted towards the smaller. When that's understood we will know that we have been or are carrying forward a critical Newtonian mutual gravitation error about the universe.
Interestingly, the diameter of a circle is finite and known to geometrically exist. A big bang is crude relative to the enduring elegance of the ratio between a never ending circumference and its finite diameter and perhaps actual God is the eternal circumference. Of the three basic reason why ideas, only a diagram of a circle can be drawn without ensuing debate about whether or not it is the right diagram of a circle. Not so much with the theoretical God bedtime story, the question left is how the atomic structure is formed by moving spontaneous particles of space. Internal radiated accretion? That is radiation directed towards the centre of an electron orbit colliding is the birth of larger particles?....Who knows but Pi is not too bad a bedtime story.
Personal notes. The fact that the planets couldn't be ascending in the sun's gravity was noticed in the classroom.
As well school was left with the motion of the sun untaught. Post school the bright thing in the sky was occasionally looked at. It would have to be moving a bit was the consideration. It wouldn't be exactly fixed.
Towards two decades after not being taught a motion crucial to life on earth it was read that the sun was telescopically assessed to have the superior motion of the solar system. By then, through the moon's two kilometre/second speed change every fourteen days relative to the earth's 30 km/second relative to a fixed sun, Sir Isaac Newton was unequivocally known to have been illogical about why the moon is in 'orbit' of the earth. Upon belatedly learning of the motion of the sun, also knew leaving classrooms with murmurings of "they haven't got that right yet" had been sound classroom exits.
So a determination to understand why one high tide is an ascension against a direction of fall towards the moon for once and for all was created. More or less since then, one goal in life has been to get the sun and earth motions' to be taught in conjunction. The other goal has been to get a worldly consideration of Newton's third law and not his law of gravity as the simple answer to why one high tide rises against a direction of fall towards the moon.
When it comes to saying the problems of world lie in junior school physics, still trying to find a voice.
As well school was left with the motion of the sun untaught. Post school the bright thing in the sky was occasionally looked at. It would have to be moving a bit was the consideration. It wouldn't be exactly fixed.
Towards two decades after not being taught a motion crucial to life on earth it was read that the sun was telescopically assessed to have the superior motion of the solar system. By then, through the moon's two kilometre/second speed change every fourteen days relative to the earth's 30 km/second relative to a fixed sun, Sir Isaac Newton was unequivocally known to have been illogical about why the moon is in 'orbit' of the earth. Upon belatedly learning of the motion of the sun, also knew leaving classrooms with murmurings of "they haven't got that right yet" had been sound classroom exits.
So a determination to understand why one high tide is an ascension against a direction of fall towards the moon for once and for all was created. More or less since then, one goal in life has been to get the sun and earth motions' to be taught in conjunction. The other goal has been to get a worldly consideration of Newton's third law and not his law of gravity as the simple answer to why one high tide rises against a direction of fall towards the moon.
When it comes to saying the problems of world lie in junior school physics, still trying to find a voice.
Even if the impossibility of infinite space was the wrong bedtime story, in its favour there is only one biggest circle. Who first discovered Pi, though, could be argumentative.
A sentiment along the lines of Aristotle's scientific method. Classically, when Albert Einstein was developing his theories of relativity, any on hand peers had need to tell him that the rate of the clock is the essential altered by height and speed. Time is just an artifact of a clock.
Going back a bit, until there is a clock, there can be no concept of time. On that basis, time and the clock are simultaneous original occurrences. From our societal points of view, clocks are refined into machines that can be read at glance. From the starry night view point, the ultimate clock is going to be the universe. Time / something to count would begin as the universe does and the words universe and clock would be interchangeable.
Thus a Pi bedtime story......
A/ The beginning of time and the beginning of the universe is the beginning of the three dimensions.
B/ The end of time and the end of the universe is the end of the three dimensions.
Which would mean what we have come to know as time is Pi calculating itself. In a more refined way that makes the beginning of time the beginning of the calculation of Pi and the end of time the end of the calculation of Pi. Which, now it has begun, may be never.
If this original simultaneity of time and clock are part of a legitimate bed time story, space is then an equal and opposite force system. One force being the diameter. The other its limit or the end of space. The story line point being a model of infinite space is not going to be geometrically / mathematically plausible and finite space is not nothing. It's force on the outside and instantaneous particles calculating Pi on the inside.
This is where it might get a bit tricky for mathematical physicists. Those of the Einstein cult. The ones probably not prepared to put Einstein's own wisdom about solving problems against Einstein's theories.
Time.
Until there is a clock, there can be no concept of time. If that's logical, time and the clock are simultaneous original occurrences. From the starry night view point, the ultimate clock is going to be the universe. Time / something to count would begin as the universe does and the words universe and clock would be interchangeable.
Which means there is a confusion running through Einstein's theories about what time is. The simple solution to the confusion would be recognizing that it is the mechanics of the measuring device (the clock) that is altered by the speed or weight of the measuring device. Clocks on the moon would be expected to run faster than an equivalent clock on the earth. If they do, that does not prove Einstein's theory of general relativity. Einstein's mistake is time is not what makes a clock function. What makes a clock function is inner motions. When we find a clock is five minutes slow on earth, we don't say time has slowed down. We just say something is up with the clock. All Einstein's time dilation means is there is something up with the clock.
The confusion seems to be between assessing that ageing is caused by time. It's not. Time is an agreed method of counting and causes nothing except the odd stupid theory. In simple terms, ageing is caused by wear and tear.
With schools in physical hibernation, currently physicists have a perfect opportunity to prepare education to go beyond the schoolbook mistakes of academic geniuses like Sir Isaac and Albert either created or lived oblivious to.
If they don't or can't take to the task with relish, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Except for edited in videos, the tone of the page predates the corona virus. Leave any desire or need of translation to those who translate.
Anybody accepting Sir Isaac Newton's apple story without supporting mathematics is passionately curious about neither apples or the earth that apples fall towards. Albert Einstein was mainly curious about how to become an academic genius.
With a bit of luck, this web page will allow interested or worldly concerned physicists to start Sir Isaac's apple story again. First they have to realize that the law of gravity surrounding it is formula without any support mathematics.
After that, common sense about both the tides and planetary motion should open. Then the similarities in the day lengths of outer adjacent planets and the ratios of the inner three can be looked at by locked away sub genius academics washing their hands and knobs as often as necessary.
You never know what's around the corner. Just as only Bill Gates and a select few envisaged mass hibernation, not even they had seen Sir Isaac Newton had taken leave of his senses when he was holed up with the plague in 1665.
As is well known, Sir Isaac came up with many ideas during his social distancing. One was about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. For most of his new found ideas, Sir Isaac attached pages of support mathematics. For this every particle one there was none. Just a formula plucked out of the air that no one was to ever doubt. By the time it entered academic discourse, Sir Isaac was an academic genius and you never doubt anyone who has seen into the universe with squiggle after squiggle of mathematics.
In the area of squiggly line mathematics, both Sir Isaac and Albert Einstein were pure academic geniuses. The news is, in this time of crisis, the academic genius embargo has been lifted. For the first time what an academic genius can be revealed to the general public.
An academic genius is an academic able to get lots and lots of other academics to agree that they are academic geniuses. Once they have that agreement, they are academic geniuses.
The question will probably be asked about how and why the current impossibility of planetary motion tutelage has been slipping past geniuses equivalent of Sir Isaac and Albert. The answer is likely to be along the lines of Bill was too busy building computers to notice the physics teacher had the planets ascending.
The last four topics (including the intro) are imaginative fresh ideas. They are not direct corrections. Importantly, the more speculative nature of the last four topics should not detract from the certainty of modern physics professors allowing unfortunate imprimatur to the teaching of impossible solutions to both planetary motion and the tides.
The only problem for physicists being the day length year length numbers telescopes are revealing have no way of being computed within the mathematical ideas of this man.
The only problem for physicists being the day length year length numbers telescopes are revealing have no way of being computed within the mathematical ideas of this man.
Whoever you are, Wilson, thanks for the introduction.
This page was completed as the virus struck. Post contagion, its content dovetails with a world looking for better answers. Mathematical physics is not it.
In fact mathematical physicists admitting Sir Isaac Newton's apple story is a stupid waste of their own genius could have a calming effect during the contagion. Who knows.
Specifically, the virus is opportunity for physicists to rejig their thought patterns with a view to understanding why the earth has 1425.6 minutes in a day and Mars has 1,483.2 minutes is a day. Orbits about 75,000,000 kilometres apart and a little under an hour the difference in day lengths.
Further out Jupiter has 590.4 minutes in a day. Adjacent planet Saturn has 633.6 minutes in a day. Orbits about 700,000,000 apart and 3/4 hour difference in day lengths.
Further out again, Uranus has 1036.8 minutes in a day. Adjacent planet Neptune 964.8 minutes in a day. Orbits over 1,500,000,000 kilometres apart and a little over a hour difference in day lengths. The idiosyncrasy being the axis of Uranus points almost directly towards the sun.
Why would adjacent outer planets have such similarities in their day lengths. Thhe inner two planets, Mercury and Venus, come to the party with day lengths more aligned with their year lengths. Including the earth as inner planet, rotation - year length near exact ratios begin to show up between the three.
Now retired, the content of this web page comes from the mind of a fifteen year Australian old school boy. Without genius involved, a glance had said Newtonian physics is crap. Sensible answers to the tides and planetary motion were unknown. What Sir Isaac had delivered as solutions to each was unfit for serious learning.
The page was completed just as the virus struck. Post contagion, its content dovetails with a world looking for better answers.
.
The correct answer is the planets are falling towards a motion. That of the sun. The planets are not falling from a non existent ascending motion towards a fixed point. This fudge of physics is compounded by another academic fudge. That of an apple attracting the earth as it falls.
Pretty boring but, with luck, this web page is a call out to educational bureaucrats. If it's not, the job falls to someone else aware of the necessity of the task.
Work has been done to get the required points across to anyone with a position in education. The implication is the current idea of equations being the answer to the universe is a far fetched ivory tower one. The answer is likely to be the biggest circle.
For any amount of reasons the southern earth hemisphere is the likely hemisphere to notice the Copernican revolution has the planets ascending.
The correct answer is the planets are falling towards a motion. That of the sun. The planets are not falling from a non existent ascending motion towards a fixed point.
Pretty boring but, with luck, this web page is a call out to educational bureaucrats. If it's not, the job falls someone else aware of the necessity of the task.
Work has been done to get the required points across to anyone with a position in education. Whether or not this toil has been sufficient to be noticed above belief in Einstein, who knows. All things equal, it should be. Albert's theories are built upon the above fudge.
For any amount of reasons Australia is a likely place for the Copernican revolution to be noticed to have unsound foundations from.
Whether or not a professor of any nationality has the down to earth character to admit A would require a lifting force to be part of a planetary motion solution is the biggest problem this planet will ever know. Educational bureaucrats are paid to be of a superior mind. An admission of a simple founding error in man's understanding of the physics of the universe won't come easy to anyone with letters after their name.
The last three topics are personal opinion and are not direct corrections of Copernican revolution mistakes. The third last (link) is likely to be the most peaceful and wondrous knowledge the earth will ever be able provide junior classrooms with. Importantly, the uncertainty of the last three topics should not detract from the certainty of fudge physics being used to teach the basics of both the tides and planetary motion. Without doubt the preceding correction work is essential to life on earth.
The bottom line being paying any professor or schoolteacher to maintain a fake classroom solution to planetary motion is a reprehensible act of government. Alternatively, as soon as educational bureaucrats recognize that they are accountable to the classroom for what they consider teachable, starting the wheels of education rolling sans Galileo's unexplained levitation is better government than ever before.If you have a university education and take a disliking to being lumped into the bureaucratic burden basket, sorry. It is understood that there is more good than harm in a university education. The cogitation, though, comes from relevant Australian professors not being prepared to listen. Exposure to desire to such makes the produce of a university en masses seem no different to the most dastardly of bureaucratic regimes. Perhaps even the epitome of such. That's at the heart of the apology.
To simply demonstrate the self serving weak link point that academia is. At the top of the google search, bureaucracy definition (link) is - A system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
Thus the contentious question is only whether or not professors are state officials. They do seem to get paid by the state. So the answer is probably yes. If that is the correct answer and professors won't listen when someone says "I was taught mistakes at a state school", then their officialdom is not state based. Thus educational bureaucrats are or at least can be weak links in a system of government, etc. From personal experience, elected members of parliament feel duty bound to happily and unquestioningly curtsy to whatever an educational bureaucrat says.
The last three topics are personal opinion and are not direct corrections of the absurdities educational bureaucracies are overseeing.
It's the most boring of the boring. Professors and kind not taking Newton's gravity mess seriously would be acting in treason against life on earth. Unequivocally, the mindset Sir Isaac's apple story yields to the planet has the destructive power of a asteroid crashing into it.
To simply demonstrate the self serving weak link point that academia is. At the top of the google search, bureaucracy definition (link) is - A system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
Thus the contentious question is only whether or not professors are state officials. They do seem to get paid by the state. So the answer is probably yes. If that is the correct answer and professors won't listen when someone says "I was taught mistakes at a state school", then their officialdom is not state based. Thus educational bureaucrats are or at least can be weak links in a system of government, etc. From personal experience, elected members of parliament feel duty bound to happily and unquestioningly curtsy to whatever an educational bureaucrat says.
The last three topics are personal opinion and are not direct corrections of the absurdities educational bureaucracies are overseeing.
It's the most boring of the boring. Professors and kind not taking Newton's gravity mess seriously would be acting in treason against life on earth. Unequivocally, the mindset Sir Isaac's apple story yields to the planet has the destructive power of a asteroid crashing into it.
Educational bureaucrats have to be woken up to this and other mistakes that they are propagating.
Pretty boring but, with luck, this web page is their worldly wake up call. If it's not, someone else will have to do it in a more capable or less noxious manner. For any amount of reasons, though, Australia is a likely place for the alert to sound out from. The bottom line being paying any professor or schoolteacher to maintain a fake classroom solution to planetary motion doesn't make much sense. Alternatively, as soon as educational bureaucrats admit A is taking planets away from the sun, they can start the wheels of education rolling sans mistake.
For those of us in our adult years, realizing that we have taught a planetary motion misapprehension to ourselves for centuries on end is almost unprecedented. The misteaching can only mean educational bureaucrats and their bureaucracies are not a holistic part of government. That academic power and the good of the planet are not necessarily aligned. On the positive side, the discovery of the motion of the sun and accurate measurements of the rotation rates of the planets are educational opportunities in waiting. Moral ineptitude of educational bureaucracies aside, these so far untapped sources can make learning more or less an immediate bright new day.
If you have a university education and take a disliking to being lumped in as part of a bureaucratic burden, sorry. The cogitation comes from relevant professors not being prepared to listen when their mistakes are pointed out. To much of that and a university seems no different to any other bureaucratic regime. Perhaps even the epitome of one. That's at the heart of the apology.
Anyway, at the top of the google search, bureaucracy definition (link). A system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
Which makes the question one of whether or not professors are state officials. They do seem to get paid by the state. So the answer is probably yes. If that is the correct answer and they won't listen when someone says "I was taught mistakes at a state school", then their officialdom is not state based. Thus educational bureaucrats are a weak link in a system of government, etc.
Anyway, at the top of the google search, bureaucracy definition (link). A system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
Which makes the question one of whether or not professors are state officials. They do seem to get paid by the state. So the answer is probably yes. If that is the correct answer and they won't listen when someone says "I was taught mistakes at a state school", then their officialdom is not state based. Thus educational bureaucrats are a weak link in a system of government, etc.
Educational bureaucrats have to be woken up to the fact that the Copernican revolution physics doesn't make sense. That it is not the answer and should not be taught.
Pretty boring but, with luck, this web page is their worldly wake up call. If it's not, someone else will have to do it in a more capable or less noxious manner. For any amount of reasons, though, Australia is a likely place for the alert to sound out from. The bottom line being paying any bureaucrat to maintain a fake solution to planetary motion doesn't make much sense. Alternatively, as soon as educational bureaucrats admit A is an ascent, they can start education afresh.
As a word of introduction, if you are a professor and wish to see yourself as other than a bureaucrat, that's between you and yourself. Bureaucracy is defined as relating to a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives. From experience of not being able to achieve an audience with a professor beyond saying "Sir Isaac Newton has made a mistake", a professor is the epitome of a bureaucrat. Henceforth anyone who has anything to do with what is deemed educationally appropriate is referred to as a bureaucrat.
Today's Australian bureaucrats have need to first acknowledge that Galileo's ascension in the sun's gravity is now ancient European fantasy physics. Then to have the teaching of the impossibility brought to an end.
Bureaucrats have to be woken up to the fact that the Copernican revolution as it stands doesn't make sense and is not the answer.
Pretty boring but, with luck, this web page is their worldly wake up call. If it's not, someone else will have to do it in a more capable or less noxious manner. For any amount of reasons, though, Australia is a likely place for the alert to sound out from. The bottom line being paying any bureaucrat to maintain a fake solution to planetary motion doesn't make much sense. Alternatively, as soon as bureaucrats admit A is an ascent, they can start education afresh.
At this stage, our education standards teach immobile gravity fields. In some ways, bureaucrats moving onto mobile gravity fields only requires fresh analysis of gravity assist space exploration. The direction of the motion of the gravity fields of other planets relative to the sun is used to alter the spacecraft speed relative to the sun. The is very much in the area of why the planets themselves are able to maintain orbits of the sun. All that really has to happen for the world to move past Galileo's impossibility is bureaucrats acknowledging that the planet's white arrow (below) is the motion of its gravity field. If the planet's gravity field was fixed in space, as the sun's was to Galileo and Sir Isaac, the passing spacecraft would not have its speed increased.
Bureaucrats have to be woken up to the fact that the Copernican revolution as it stands doesn't make sense and is not the answer.
Pretty boring but, with luck, this web page is their worldly wake up call. If it's not, someone else will have to do it in a more capable or less noxious manner. For any amount of reasons, though, Australia is a likely place for the alert to sound out from. The bottom line being paying any bureaucrat to maintain a fake solution to planetary motion doesn't make much sense. Alternatively, as soon as bureaucrats admit A is an ascent, they can start education afresh.
At this stage, our education standards teach immobile gravity fields. In some ways, bureaucrats moving onto mobile gravity fields only requires fresh analysis of gravity assist space exploration. The direction of the motion of the gravity fields of other planets relative to the sun is used to alter the spacecraft speed relative to the sun. The is very much in the area of why the planets themselves are able to maintain orbits of the sun. All that really has to happen for the world to move past Galileo's impossibility is bureaucrats acknowledging that the planet's white arrow (below) is the motion of its gravity field. If the planet's gravity field was fixed in space, as the sun's was to Galileo and Sir Isaac, the passing spacecraft would not have its speed increased.
Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton played a major part in an academic revolution. This revolution began by stating the sun is fixed in the centre of the universe. Today professors no longer believe this to be so. Equally modern professors have failed to place their fixed sun disbelief against the fixed sun work Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton supplied. When they do they should be able to begin to see the universe in a new light.
The tricky part is professors are currently paid to administer the fixed sun scholarship that they now know is an inaccurate view of the universe. All things equal they should be taking a pay cut. They won't be to keen on that.
Essentially the earth is not going around that bright thing we see in the sky. The discovery of its motion tells us that the planets are galactic journey pendulums. They swing across the speed of the sun as they and the sun go around a galaxy together. The approach of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton to planetary motion was always a fake construct. The Galilean direction of A below (tendency of a planet without the influence of the sun's gravity) is an ascent. Once the sun's gravity returns from the sojourn that it can never actually take, the tendency isn't real and only B exists.
Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton played a big part in the Copernican revolution. The revolution began by stating the sun is fixed in the centre of the universe. Scientists no longer believe this to be so. Equally they have failed to place their fixed sun disbelief against the work of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton. When they do they should be able to begin to see the universe in a new light.
The tricky part is scientists are currently paid to be part of their own fixed sun disbelief. All things equal they should be taking a pay cut. They won't be to keen on that.
At this stage don't stare at it. The earth is not simply going around that bright thing you see in the sky. The earth is actually falling towards the motion of this bright thing in the sky. Not the centre of the bright thing in the sky. as we teach ourselves in our schoolbooks. Scientists should be telling everybody about this schoolbook error that Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton made. They aren't so someone else will be doing so.
Believe it or not the world hasn't a chance until the discovery of the motion of the sun is scholastically embraced. In a time of terrorism, reluctance to take an obvious scholastic step is reprehensible. There is something in the human spirit. We have to follow it.
Sound government based lifestyles can be enjoyed. The key is being prepared to not question what you were taught at school. Particularly about Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
If everything is on the right track, in perpetuity hierarchies of academics can enjoy life and tolerable if not dogmatic systems of both government and education are running the world.
If revered figures of the past made mistakes, though, the world suffers unnecessary handicaps. Holding minions in place, hierarchies usually have the power or influence of the gun at hand. Throw in the commands to the minions coming from the grave through schoolbooks, the pen and the sword join forces. The world is burdened by the mistakes of eulogized figures.
Sound government based lifestyles can be garnered. Get employed to repeat what pass marks were given for when back at school yourself.
As long as what is taught at school in the first place is correct, academics enjoy life and tolerable systems of both government and education run the world.
Incorrect teachings, though, and the world is in trouble. Government supported mistakes of education for century after century direct the planet.
All this was once in a different format. The Martians had come to earth and were explaining where we had gravity and motion all wrong. If professors were uncontactable the next best thing was the whole world contacted in a happier manner. On the very day that format was declared finished, an apprentice cabinet maker took his own life on. The problem involved was not of his making. The parents he had did not handle the situation in an adequate manner. Amongst his friends he was known for touching and talking about wood. After Abraham died, the feeling for making the whole world laugh had vanished.
Sir Isaac Newton explicitly stated he didn't know how a vector could emanate from mass to cause gravity. The modern idea is the intellectual direction of time causes the vector. Time does not have quantitative direction as in the ability of an object to physically go backwards or forward in time under experimental conditions. Using the future as an element of why objects fall to the earth has always been science fiction. Time is counting and counting is scalar.
In the case of an inertial resistance vector born out of scalar mass, this traces back to the B.C. period. In simplistic form Aristotle's ideas were force has to be applied for motion to continue. And more massive objects descend to earth at a greater rate. Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton's laws are supplied to modern classrooms as having taken earth scholarship past these Aristotelian misconceptions.........
Galileo, or Galileo's era, deduced that a quality inherent of matter called 'inertia' was the reason a motion continued. This quality of matter both resisted a change of a state of motion and was the reason a motion perseveres. The deduction has been considered to consign Aristotle's lack of reasoning about the continuation of motion back to the B.C. era.
Before Galileo the centuries already had the contrary explanation to Aristotle's various ideas of how an applied force continued to be applied beyond actual contact. This pre Galilean answer was called impetus (link) by proclaimers. A motion supplied to an object by a force continues beyond the application of the force was what Frenchman Jean Buridan stated two centuries before the life of Galileo and fifteen centuries after the life of Aristotle.
Defined as the product of mass and velocity, by Sir Isaac Newton's time Buridan's impetus had become known as 'momentum'.
Sir Isaac analytically proved that momentum is conserved when objects collide. He did this with a cradle of suspended balls (link).
Courtesy of Galileo, what Sir Isaac failed to understand is the simple arithmetical base to the conservation of the momentum of collided objects. Which is.....
Arithmetically the product of mass and velocity is uniform.
When one number represents a mass quantity and another number represents the magnitude of the velocity vector of that mass, there is only one answer when those two numbers are multiplied together.
Newton's cradle was dependent upon this arithmetical/vector fact. Sir Isaac's mind left the velocity component of momentum out of momentum and then mistakenly went along with Galileo and called this simple fact of arithmetic "inertial mass".
Beyond Galileo's life and without inclusion of the two words, 'inertial mass' has been considered to be contained within Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. That first law.........
"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed."
Alternatively Sir Isaac Newton's first law is referred to as the 'law of inertia'. Dramatic educational progress will occur when modern physics teachers smarten up to the fact that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are worded into the readout of Sir Isaac's first law of motion. And that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are needed to explain any facet of motion.
What's needed is an understanding that arithmetically momentum is uniform/conserved. And Sir Isaac Newton's second and third laws.
Reading Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion as stated = the product of mass and velocity with his second law tacked on. Or reworded with Sir Isaac's second law left off the end and designating 'the perseverance of a state of rest' to be an absence of momentum change, Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion reads.......
"In its direction of travel, the product of a body's mass and velocity is uniformly conserved."
Mass x velocity replaces the mechanically undefined 'perseveres' and Sir Isaac Newton's second law is left to be that law.
Importantly, the inclusion of 'momentum' and the exclusion of the unmentioned 'inertial mass' are both critical to current physics teachers when they stand in front of a class. If you are currently studying junior school physics, in clear and concise terms, that's Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. The product of velocity and quantity = uniform motion. Not inertial mass = uniform motion as your teacher implies when he or she teaches you Sir Isaac's first law of motion. And the resistance to a change of state of free momentum only comes to be when an external force is applied. The resistance is explained simply by Sir Isaac Newton's third law.
Below the larger mass is stationary relative to the earth. It's lack of motion relative to the earth is due to the absence of an applied force. Not the fact of its 5 kilograms as is currently implied through the appearance of the word 'perseveres' in Newton's first law of motion.
The question looking for an answer is why would pairs of adjacent planets have rotation rates that are approximate of each other?
When the close synchronization of the three Venus days with every two earth years and the almost exact three Mercury days to every two Mercury years is added to the slower inner planet turn rates, observed rotation rates are pointing to the solar system being a gear box churning out numbers as it advances around the galaxy.
[(3 x 243.02 = 729.06) (2 x 365.26 = 730.52)]
[(58.65 x 3 = 175.95) (87.97 x 2 = 175.94)]
The Mercury day length - orbital period ratio of three to two would be an extremely unlikely coincidence. There are other near exact ratios between Mercury and Venus. Instead of black holes and big bangs, a Copernican revolution with the goal of understanding rotation rates set as a priority would be of tangible value to the way life on earth goes about itself.
One impeding hypnotic problem is Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity is more fib than truth. A smaller mass does not cause the acceleration of a larger mass towards itself. The other academic concern is failure to understand that a resistance to a change of motion is an acquired opposite force. Not a force mysteriously residing in the bowels of matter as Galileo's era began a belief thereof.
Beginning with the original qualification of having once seen a physics teacher was teaching stupidity about the tides and planetary motion, each of these problems as hypnotic flies in the ointment of higher education is explained in detail here.
Where acclaimed dependent equations fall afterwards is where they fall. Theories developed from unsound foundations that are of calculative use would be that. Usable mistakes that are not of otherwise value.
The world is unlikely to have a better or other way forward than beginning a respect of the telescopically discovered rotation rates of the planets. Just like Johannes Kepler's third law of planetary motion table, the rotation rate table is a riddle of knowledge about the solar system waiting to be solved.
What the Copernican revolution hasn't done is move up to the fact that the falling of the planets towards the sun is not balanced by a planet's 'inertial mass'. Courtesy of the motion of the sun's gravity field, the balance is a constantly changing direction of descent. Using numbers as the arbiter of right and wrong, the wash up is the same as the ascending Galilean 'inertial' direction on the school lesson diagram at the top of the page. In terms of physics, though, it is a vastly different circumstance.
In fact when the balance of the acceleration towards the sun is seen to be the advancement of the sun's gravity field around a galaxy, traditional physics is bereft of answers. The only way the constant falling of both the earth and moon towards the sun can fit together in a stable way is if they are held a part. Hence the push. The implication is gravity fields are extremely large moving particles filling up the universe and planets and stars are minute but more easily detectable particles in their centres.
So could we be wasting away what the telescope is telling us about the solar system? In particular about the discovered motion of the sun and the rotation rates of the planets? With respect of the motion of the sun, the answer is definitely yes. The gravity assist technique used to further launch a spacecraft as it passes another planet would not work if the planet's gravity field was fixed in space. It is that gravity field in motion method used to accelerate a passing spacecraft that solves Galileo's ascending uniform motion impossibility on the current classroom diagram.
If you are a mathematical physicist of the Copernican revolution era, this is the simple point. Your craft is based on unproven presumptions. A mutual gravitation of the universe and motion having a reason that is intrinsic of matter. Each presumption is demonstrable as unfounded and relatively easily so.
Realistically physicists over the centuries could have and should have harboured suspicions about both those concepts. The absence of professional rat smelling can only really be attributed to Sir Isaac Newton hypnotizing future education systems with his dominance of the early Royal Society of England (link).
Sans hypnotism by now our knowledge base would easily contain the gravity field aspects of size, motion and their rotations. Coupled with Newton's third law, the size of a gravity field explains why it has like tides on direct opposite sides. As alluded to, it's the motion of a gravity field that explains an 'orbit' within a gravity field. Unheralded, the rotation of a gravity field is going to be the explainer of planetary day lengths. Twenty four hours in our day is almost certainly a factor of the twenty four hours in a Mars day.
Has more good than bad has come out of hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, potassium, sodium, aluminium, silicon phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, argon, potassium, calcium, scandium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, gallium, germanium, arsenic, selenium, bromine, krypton, rubidium, strontium, zirconium, niobium, molybdenum, technetium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, cadmium, indium, tin, antimony, tellurium, iodine, xenon, cesium, barium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium, hafnium, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, osmium, iridium, platinum, gold, mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth, polonium, astatine, radon, francium, radium, actinium, thorium, protactinium, uranium, neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, berkelium, californium, einsteinium, fermium, mendelevium, nobelium, and lawrencium?
94 of these elements are said to be naturally occurring on the earth. Relative to the numbers assessed to be on other known celestial bodies, the earth is apparently one with ingredients that can result in animated life. No worries.
The only real way for a computer to comprehend Sir Isaac's formula as proven is at the folklore level.
Similar to the olden day academic misnomer about the universe of the earth being fixed in its centre, Newton's apple story about the gravity of the universe cast through the generations does not represent proof of a universal or mutual gravitation of every particle in the universe.
When professors become unapproachable at mention of mistakes within the Copernican revolution, 'inept' seems a reasonable adjective to place in front of their profession.
In the beginning the approach was to have the Martians arrive on earth and explain all the mistakes. Making the whole world laugh was the objective. This was never to happen. That web page evolved over a three year period. The situation was unprecedented. Whatever the rules might or might not have been for getting through to unapproachable professors, not taking everything to seriously fitted with the one who had the task to do. The Martians of course were all the traffic lights of the world. For obvious reasons they needed to go to the toilet. Red, amber and green meant very stages of needing to go. On the very day this was declared finished, my son took his life. Afterwards the feeling for making the whole world laugh was no longer there.
In the beginning the approach was to have the Martians arrive on earth and explain all the mistakes. Making the whole world laugh was the objective. This was never to happen. That web page evolved over a three year period. The situation was unprecedented. Whatever the rules might or might not have been for getting through to unapproachable professors, not taking everything to seriously fitted with the one who had the task to do. The Martians of course were all the traffic lights of the world. For obvious reasons they needed to go to the toilet. Red, amber and green meant very stages of needing to go. On the very day this was declared finished, my son took his life. Afterwards the feeling for making the whole world laugh was no longer there.
It wasn't simply that they met in the schoolyard as twelve year olds. And that she found out that she was lesbian at the age of fifteen. And that they became closer friends afterwards. The coroner is tardy with his report but there was a prescription drug involved. Citalopram. Something that should not prescribed to anyone under thirty who has had thoughts of suicide. He had only been taking them nine days. Gee the kid had bad luck. On reading his messenger relationship with his friend after he died, the suicide concept had been floating around inside of him. But, on knowing him and his last few days of life, the drug relaxed his adrenaline. Or did something of that nature. After some banal intercourse with me in person and his friend online, he hung himself in another room. Fairly easily as it was. His bedroom was in the old section of the house. Outside his room the plaster was off the walls and a builders trestle was handy.
As should be imaginable, the guilt felt is extreme. It is hoped the rejigging of the Martians into what follows honors Abraham's life.
As should be imaginable, the guilt felt is extreme. It is hoped the rejigging of the Martians into what follows honors Abraham's life.
What the Copernican revolution hasn't done is moved up to the fact that the falling of the planets towards the sun is not balanced by 'inertia'. Courtesy of the motion of the sun's gravity field, the balance is a constantly changing direction of descent. Mathematically this washes up the same as the Galilean 'inertial' direction on the school lesson diagram at the top of the page. In terms of physics, though, it is a vastly different scenario.
When the physics of the balance is seen to be extrinsic of the earth, as in the motion of the sun's gravity field, the physics of the Copernican revolution enters a phase of being out of its depth. The only way the constant falling of both the earth and moon towards the sun can fit together in a stable way is if they are held a part. Hence the push. The implication is gravity fields are extremely large and moving particles filling up the universe and planets and stars are minute but more easily detectable particles in their centres.
So could we be wasting away what the telescope has discovered? In particular the motion of the sun and the rotation rates of the planets?
If you are a mathematical physicist, this is the point. Your craft is based on presumptions. A mutual gravitation of the universe and motion having a reason that is intrinsic of matter. Each presumption is demonstrable as unfounded and relatively easily so.
In fact physicists over the centuries should have harboured suspicions about both those concepts. The absence of professional rat smelling can only really be attributed to Sir Isaac Newton hypnotizing future education systems with his dominance of the early Royal Society of England (link). It is really not hard to see the ascent mistake on the diagram at the top of the page, though. The inertial part of the hypnotism could have been addressed long ago.
Sans hypnotism by now our knowledge base would realistically contain the gravity field aspects of size, motion and their rotations. These parameters of a gravity field are going to be real steps along the path to greater knowledge about the universe.
Coupled with Newton's third law, the size of a gravity field explains why it has like tides on direct opposite sides. Its motion explains an 'orbit' within a gravity field and the rotation of a gravity field is going to explain our day lengths. 24 hours in our day is almost certainly a factor of the 24 hours in a Mars day.
If every time you look at the moon you are sure that there is a push somewhere along your gaze line, you feel a moral obligation to arouse the world to what you are seeing.
This is not easy, though. It means the Copernican revolution has it physics out kilter.
On top of that the power of man is getting to be invested in the mathematical physics spawned by the revolution being the foundation of greater knowledge about the universe.
This is not easy, though. It means the Copernican revolution has it physics out kilter.
On top of that the power of man is getting to be invested in the mathematical physics spawned by the revolution being the foundation of greater knowledge about the universe.
If every time you look at the moon you are sure that there is a push somewhere along your gaze line, you feel obliged to arouse the world to what you are seeing.
This is not easy, though. It means the Copernican revolution has it physics out kilter.
On top of that the power of man is getting to be invested in the mathematical physics spawned by the Copernican revolution being the foundation of greater knowledge about the universe. When you look at how advanced the world is today, you don't even really know if you have the right to have a poke at the power of knowledge. Professors are its boss and it's best when boss is right. Nevertheless their predecessors were wrong about a fixed earth. Why couldn't today's custodians of knowledge be fundamentally just as wrong about the earth and the moon?
This is not easy, though. It means the Copernican revolution has it physics out kilter.
On top of that the power of man is getting to be invested in the mathematical physics spawned by the Copernican revolution being the foundation of greater knowledge about the universe. When you look at how advanced the world is today, you don't even really know if you have the right to have a poke at the power of knowledge. Professors are its boss and it's best when boss is right. Nevertheless their predecessors were wrong about a fixed earth. Why couldn't today's custodians of knowledge be fundamentally just as wrong about the earth and the moon?
Mathematical physics is not an honest part of life on earth. Mathematical physicists themselves may live daily lives to varying degrees of honesty. Born out of the past, the craft itself is an out an out lie. Worse. It's become an untenable abuse of the discovery of the inverse square law of fall rate diminish. What the world needs to do is revolt against the cunning physics at the base of mathematical physics and come to understand the tides and planetary motion through common sense.
By now our knowledge base should contain the gravity aspects of size, motion and the rotation of gravity fields. These parameters of a gravity field are obvious steps along the path to the truth of the universe.
Coupled with Newton's third law, the size of a gravity field explains why it has like tides on direct opposite sides. Its motion explains an 'orbit' within a gravity field and the rotation of a gravity field is going to explain day lengths. Our 24 hours in a day is almost certainly a factor of the 24 hours in a Mars day.
By now our knowledge base should contain the gravity aspects of size, motion and the rotation of gravity fields. These parameters of a gravity field are obvious steps along the path to the truth of the universe.
Coupled with Newton's third law, the size of a gravity field explains why it has like tides on direct opposite sides. Its motion explains an 'orbit' within a gravity field and the rotation of a gravity field is going to explain day lengths. Our 24 hours in a day is almost certainly a factor of the 24 hours in a Mars day.
Scholars today should turn their attention to rotation periods within the solar system. The similar turn rates of adjacent outer planets is striking. Also the turn rates of the inner two planets is of the order of their solar cycle periods. When the close synchronization of the 3 Venus days with 2 earth years and the almost exact 3 Mercury days to every 2 Mercury years is added, that is equally as striking.
[(3 x 243.02 = 729.06) (2 x 365.26 = 730.52)]
[(58.65 x 3 = 175.95) (87.97 x 2 = 175.94)]
The Mercury day length orbital period ratio would be an extremely unlikely coincidence. There are other near exact ratios between Mercury and Venus.
The problem over the centuries is scholars don't seemed to have noticed something especially critical in what they are taught. Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity is off with the fairies. This is explained in detail here.
Where acclaimed dependent equations fall afterwards is where they fall. Theories developed from unsound foundations that are of practical use are that.
Part of the false foundation of mathematical physics appears above. It's an association of force with uniform motion. From there the real falsity of mathematical physics has become confusing a time measuring device with what it measures. Time.
What we should be doing is asking what came first? Time or the clock. The answer can only really be simultaneous occurrences. From our so far point of view, clocks may be refined into machines that can be read at glance. The ultimate clock, though is the universe.
So would the clock and time combined be 3.1459........ Probably. That's what the universe itself is going to be. Pi calculating itself. Even if the universe is something else, it's a wholesome story of motion and intrigue that so far never ends and quite possibly never will. A worth mentioning yarn relative to supreme creation and a big bang rolled into one.
The important thing is setting about correcting the mistakes of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton surrounding the Copernican revolution. A wrong diagram of planetary motion and impossible diagrammatic interpretations of the tides adorn junior school education. Obviously these errors are being parlayed through the generations by our education systems. If nothing else teaching fixed sun planetary motion and the moon stretches the earth is a waste of taxes.
So this intro from the past has a whiff of a scholastic future world revolution about it. If we do have one those it should be fun for one and all. Who knows how it ends up? Virtually assuredly, it won't be worse than the state of the world at the moment. That's the main thing.
G.K.
The name happens to be George Kingston. Suggesting that you can begin a changing of the direction of world history from a point of obscurity is not something done easily. It is understood that the likely initial reaction will be this bloke is stupid. The other side of that coin is something magical has probably been worked out. That being the 24 hours in the earth day and the 24 hours in a Mars days are consequence of each other through the rotations of their gravity fields. If that checks out those educated tomorrow will have a much more wondrous state of mind about the universe relative to the religious bickering that still goes on today.
Anyway, we are all in this together. If we want to we can change the direction the world is heading in. We do it through educating tomorrow about the what the radio telescope is telling us today.
The name happens to be George Kingston. Suggesting that you can begin a changing of the direction of world history from a point of obscurity is not something done easily. It is understood that the likely initial reaction will be this bloke is stupid. The other side of that coin is something magical has probably been worked out. That being the 24 hours in the earth day and the 24 hours in a Mars days are consequence of each other through the rotations of their gravity fields. If that checks out those educated tomorrow will have a much more wondrous state of mind about the universe relative to the religious bickering that still goes on today.
Anyway, we are all in this together. If we want to we can change the direction the world is heading in. We do it through educating tomorrow about the what the radio telescope is telling us today.
The name happens to be George Kingston. Suggesting that you can begin a changing of the direction of world history from a point of obscurity is not something done easily. It is understood that the likely initial reaction will be this bloke is stupid. The other side of that coin is something magical has probably been worked out. That being the 24 hours in the earth day and the 24 hours in a Mars days are consequence of each other through the rotations of their gravity fields. If that checks out those educated tomorrow will have a much more wondrous state of mind about the universe relative to the religious bickering that still goes on today.
Anyway, we are all in this together. If we want to we can change the direction the world is heading in. We do it through educating tomorrow about the what the radio telescope is telling us today.
The name happens to be George Kingston. Suggesting that you can begin a changing of the direction of world history from a point of obscurity is not something done easily. It is understood that the likely initial reaction will be this bloke is stupid. The other side of that coin is something magical has probably been worked out. That being the 24 hours in the earth day and the 24 hours in a Mars days are consequence of each other through the rotations of their gravity fields. If that checks out those educated tomorrow will have a much more wondrous state of mind about the universe relative to the religious bickering that still goes on today.
Anyway, we are all in this together. If we want to we can change the direction the world is heading in. We do it through educating tomorrow about the what the radio telescope is telling us today.
Never set out to. At the age of fifteen or so unwittingly left a physics class as someone who could change the direction of world history.
All that happened in the classroom was a noticing. The Galilean Newtonian explanation of planetary motion was absurd. These gentlemen had the planets simultaneously rising and falling. That couldn't be possible.
Schools are places where desire for pass marks can cause brainwashing would be the general answer to why those destined to become rocket scientists don't notice how stupid the explanation is. That rocket science absurdity was coupled with Sir Isaac Newton having an equally stupid explanation of the second high tide.
Do know that calamities aplenty around the world can be pointed to. But the world isn't going as bad as the feeling gets to be at times. All we have to do is get schoolteachers to stop teaching Sir Isaac Newton's apple story as some mystical path way into the universe.
The story is secluding the solution to planetary motion being the discovered motion of the sun and, beyond the moon, secluding the solution to the tides being an application of Newton's third law to the centre of the earth.
So if you aren't to wedded to the fixed sun physics of current classrooms or the various explanations of the second high tide that are taught around the world and if you come across this web page, consider moving it in the direction of others. Its an inspiration to take the world peacefully past both the fixed earth of ancient religion and the fixed sun of the more modern Copernican revolution.
All that happened in the classroom was a noticing. The Galilean Newtonian explanation of planetary motion was absurd. These gentlemen had the planets simultaneously rising and falling. That couldn't be possible.
Schools are places where desire for pass marks can cause brainwashing would be the general answer to why those destined to become rocket scientists don't notice how stupid the explanation is. That rocket science absurdity was coupled with Sir Isaac Newton having an equally stupid explanation of the second high tide.
Do know that calamities aplenty around the world can be pointed to. But the world isn't going as bad as the feeling gets to be at times. All we have to do is get schoolteachers to stop teaching Sir Isaac Newton's apple story as some mystical path way into the universe.
The story is secluding the solution to planetary motion being the discovered motion of the sun and, beyond the moon, secluding the solution to the tides being an application of Newton's third law to the centre of the earth.
So if you aren't to wedded to the fixed sun physics of current classrooms or the various explanations of the second high tide that are taught around the world and if you come across this web page, consider moving it in the direction of others. Its an inspiration to take the world peacefully past both the fixed earth of ancient religion and the fixed sun of the more modern Copernican revolution.
What's here on this web page will most likely be initially interpreted as someone pushing some new theory or other.
It's not.
It is all just there for consideration after the penny drops about Newton's law of gravity being a severe earthly malfunction. No one wants chaos when that happens. Equally no one wants to begin another brainwashing regime in the place of Sir Isaac's apple story. After his gravity formula is seen as unteachable, whatever happens, including a continuation of its teaching, is the domain of professors and schoolteachers.
Also it would be good if an Albert Einstein was the one reacting to Sir Isaac's malfunction. The world isn't going as bad as it thinks it is. Just needs someone of repute to explain to professors that gravity ain't mutual. And that we and they are on a galactic journey. Not a fixed sun journey.
Finally I am not much of a person and have lived life without desire to amount to myself as I am. Can't really talk properly. Just happened to see the teacher had both the tides and planetary motion wrong when at school. You do that and your life is one of intrigue for the right answers. Even though this web page is highly critical of the names of Newton and Einstein and, by default, those who believe those names are the door openers into the universe, request this web page to be taken seriously by educationalists. If anyone with a higher education conscience can put their prejudice in favour of Sir Isaac Newton's apple story aside for half an hour, their academic conscience would get a fresh start. And the world should be able to improve its standing with itself by seeing where its problem(s) reside.
Born 1953, die whenever, if you want to see who is saying mathematical physics is the biggest problem the world has, clicked on the image below.
The 346,000 kilometre figure becomes redundant when the sun's inverse square law is brought into the picture. The calculations begin from workable approximations of earth and moon inverse square law magnitudes. That is the calculations themselves demonstrate that the starting magnitudes are marginally less than used. That does not compromise the fact that a change of direction of fall point exists in between the earth and the moon.
Varying as the earth and moon separation varies, the earth - moon inverse square law tidal arithmetic perpetually exists in space above the earth on the earth - moon axis.
This perpetual droplet of ocean acceleration in neither direction point relative to a point equidistant from the centre of the earth but at a right angle to the earth - moon axis explains to us why we observe a high tide under the moon. And low tides at a right angle to the earth - moon axis.
The reason of the high tide on the other side of the earth then becomes apparent as part of a system of equal and opposite or Newton third law weights.
As the earth turns, essentially its tides are equal and opposite weight pairs continually adjusting to each other across the centre of the planet.
This statement was made by Sir Isaac in a fixed sun age. The man's ignorance about the motion of a 'gravity' field means he was not an appropriate or true calculator of the motions' of heavenly bodies. As well Einstein's similar styled sentiment carried human warmth and was not so condescending. The sentiment was 'the hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax'. For someone taking charge of the inverse square law, Sir Isaac's attitude to other people was unfortunately governed by insularity. Not that it was unusual for the times, he had investments in the slave trade. The overriding point being the Copernican revolution wasn't really a revolution. It was a correction.
The suggested clue to the day lengths of the planets is adjacent gravity field turn rates.
Right or wrong and difficult to digest, the basic implication of physics is there is an instantaneous never ending force within space of space upon space around mass. And that this instantaneous force alters the nature of space in accordance with the increase of curved surface area around mass. The added centre column to the rotation rates of the planets is based upon the true force of 'gravity' being away from mass. The manifestation of this force as a never ending 'circle' in space around mass altering the vertical nature of space is the inverse square law. If that happened to be right, it would mean the space is spontaneous and that the three dimensions in unison are finite.
Right or wrong and difficult to digest, the basic implication of physics is there is an instantaneous never ending force within space of space upon space around mass. And that this instantaneous force alters the nature of space in accordance with the increase of curved surface area around mass. The added centre column to the rotation rates of the planets is based upon the true force of 'gravity' being away from mass. The manifestation of this force as a never ending 'circle' in space around mass altering the vertical nature of space is the inverse square law. If that happened to be right, it would mean the space is spontaneous and that the three dimensions in unison are finite.
What's here on this web page will most likely be initially interpreted as some one pushing some new theory or other. It's not.
It is all just there for consideration when the penny drops about Newton's law of gravity being an earthly malfunction. No one wants to create a rudderless chaotic scene when it is realized that academia is not current really doing its job The new theory stuff probably will not end up that way and can be characterized as follows.....
1/ The earth and moon and the rest of the planets are held apart as well as together
2/ A key component of the tides is the equal and opposite downward forces of the earth
3/ The planetary motion is pendulumic.
4/ The rotation rates of the planets is to do with a meshing of their gravity fields as those gravity fields turn within the sun's gravity field.
If any one of those were true, general knowledge would be its status. Until mathematical physicists and academics in general admit they are insanely wrong about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe, we are a very stupid part of the universe. Evocative thing for an uneducated voice to state. The universities of the earth are in need of a deft academic revolution. One that ends their worship of Sir Isaac Newton's pathetic apple story.
It is all just there for consideration when the penny drops about Newton's law of gravity being an earthly malfunction. No one wants to create a rudderless chaotic scene when it is realized that academia is not current really doing its job The new theory stuff probably will not end up that way and can be characterized as follows.....
1/ The earth and moon and the rest of the planets are held apart as well as together
2/ A key component of the tides is the equal and opposite downward forces of the earth
3/ The planetary motion is pendulumic.
4/ The rotation rates of the planets is to do with a meshing of their gravity fields as those gravity fields turn within the sun's gravity field.
If any one of those were true, general knowledge would be its status. Until mathematical physicists and academics in general admit they are insanely wrong about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe, we are a very stupid part of the universe. Evocative thing for an uneducated voice to state. The universities of the earth are in need of a deft academic revolution. One that ends their worship of Sir Isaac Newton's pathetic apple story.
Poorly reflecting on academia, motions, rotations and sizes of inverse square laws (gravity fields) are not yet discussed in academic circles. If the discussions begin, the world should change for the better. Our current view of the universe has been hoodwinked by an academic discipline known as mathematical physics. The motion of an inverse square law (the suns) explains planetary motion, the rotations of inverse square laws (the planets) almost undoubtedly explains day lengths and the size of inverse square laws unquestionably explains the tides.
The name is unimportant normal person. The only irregularity with the world is a dropping of the jaw when taught Newtonian physics at school. Two of his laws were junk. By now it can unequivocally be stated that, while his law of mutual gravitation and his first law of motion continue to be taught, we are all part of the problem.
The Copernican revolution was built on observations running counter to existing scholarship. We are in the same position again. The discovery of the motion of the sun runs counter to existing fixed sun scholarship.
For the world to come to its senses, high scholarship needs its moving sun revolution to get underway. Knowledge of the superior motion of the sun is reasonably well known by now. All the revolution amounts to is adding the motion of the planets to that superior motion.
Whether or not this web page can get the addition operational, who knows. Depends on the professors admitting to being part of a fixed sun mistake teaching regime of lower scholarship. Graded scholars have a history of not being able to get their egos out of the road of truth. Here's hoping that the section entitled adjacent planet turn rates can make the going easy for one and all. Cogs.
G.K.
From experience professors are not answerable to anyone outside their own fraternity. Through elected parliamentarians, democracy trusts professors to be appropriate brokers of education.
When it comes to planetary motion and the tides, this system has broken down. Successful space ventures withstanding, sleight of hand nonsense is taught about the reasons why of each. Regarding teaching standards, either directly or through members of parliament, professors are uncontactable.
Now running a ship out of its own control, the fact is academia originally accepted Newtonian physics far too readily.
From experience professors are not answerable to anyone outside their own fraternity. Through elected parliamentarians, democracy trusts professors to be appropriate brokers of education.
When it comes to planetary motion and the tides, this system has broken down. Successful space ventures withstanding, nonsense is taught about the reasons why of each at school. Either directly or through members of parliament, professors are uncontactable about the sleight of hand methods employed to teach each.
The facts are professors have accepted Newtonian physics far too easily when they were at junior school themselves. This web page with its title should give the world woken up physicists and a fresh start. On the available evidence and through a rational understanding of the tides, the probability is high that the reason we have the day length we do is a factor of the uniqueness of the solar system.
Our genius mathematicians are educated to think wrong about physics is where the trouble is.
From experience professors are not answerable for what they teach or allow to be taught. Through elected parliamentarians, democracy trusts professors to be appropriate brokers of education.
This system is not without merit. Professors have peer pride and that pride is centered on sensible scholarship. When it comes to the relationship between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and the Copernican revolution, the system has broken down.
From this point of view it is the job of parliament to tell professors to put their regular roles in society aside for at least a few hours a day. The first need is acclimatizing to fact that they are indoctrinated. After that their job is to instigate an appropriate original plan of teaching the earth's post Copernican or moving solar system relationship with the universe
As it is, the revolution is carrying two junior school mistakes of physics. It is unlikely that a parliament would wish for the continuation of either if it understood their significance. One of the mistakes is mutual gravitation. The other is fixed inverse square law planetary motion. From the space venture point of view, the gravity assist technique used by a passing spacecraft to gain relative velocity is at the heart of where planetary motion tutelage should be. The technique would not work if the inverse square law of Jupiter, for example, was considered to be fixed in space in the way Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton considered the sun's inverse square law to be fixed in space. As well calculations of where the spacecraft will leave the sun's inverse square law and enter Jupiter's inverse square law is the opening of a simplified doorway beyond Sir Isaac Newton's inverse square law interpretation.
G.K.
As unpalatable as it might originally seem to in depth lovers and worshipers of the century old Einstein story, Albert's theories carry the B.C. misconceptions of Aristotle...........
To date the Copernican revolution is a failed revolution. This will continue until the motion of the sun's inverse square law is added. The job of today's physics professors is to put their regular roles in society aside for at least a few hours a day. First they need to acclimatize to the way the revolution is less than what it makes itself out to be. After that their job is to instigate an appropriate original plan of teaching planetary motion physics relative to a moving centre.
The immediate response to this sort of directive will most likely be disdain or reaction akin. The world doesn't function from unsolicited web pages offering advice and instruction to highly trained academics. Nevertheless, the revolution is carrying two awful mistakes of physics and other ways of contacting physics professors have not been forthcoming. They don't answer correspondence and contacted parliamentarians point out that these sorts of things are not their business.
One of the mistakes is mutual gravitation. The other is fixed inverse square law orbital motion. From the N.A.S.A. point of view the gravity assist technique used by a passing spacecraft to gain relative velocity is at the heart of where planetary motion tutelage should be. The technique would not work if the inverse square law of Jupiter, for example, was considered to be fixed in space in the way Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton considered the sun's inverse square law to be fixed in space. As well calculations of where the spacecraft will leave the sun's inverse square law and enter Jupiter's inverse square law is the opening of a doorway beyond Sir Isaac Newton's mutual use of the inverse square law.
If the scornfulness is not to massive, sifting through the chosen topics should help anyone of educational conscience recognize the Copernican revolution as it stands is a nightmare.
G.K.
The Copernican revolution has ended on a mistake. That of a fixed sun. It is the job of today's professors to put their regular roles in society aside for at least a few hours a day. Talk to each other about the mess the revolution has the world in for a start. Then instigate an appropriate plan of junior school correction.
These background notes should help along the way. They will have begun back in 1969. The ascension of the planets part of the planetary motion lesson simply had to be disregarded. A nonsensical solution to the second high tide likewise. The moon pulling the ocean on the far side of the earth away from itself was well outside the realm of possibility.
The passing sentiment was all the university people must be waiting for the right answers to these things to come along.
Twenty years along the basics of those right answers were stumbled into. Inverse square laws are moving. That's the ingredient of planetary motion that both the Copernican revolution and today's classrooms are somewhat pathetically lacking. The planets are falling towards a moving star, not from Galileo's theoretical ascending straight line motion towards an academically fixed centre of gravity. With the tides it was or is the mathematical accounting of the earth and moon inverse square laws in between the two that explained lateral/tidal differences in earth inverse square law magnitudes. The moon wasn't directly pulling the oceans of the earth at all. Sir Isaac Newton and his apple were part of a clear analytical mistake of earthly science.
From there it started to be found that those given to acquiring a university education to do with a physics degree were in turn giving their heart and soul to the holding of the physics of Sir Isaac Newton above a public reproach. The academic point of view encountered has always been the laws have been tested by the centuries. Doubts are not entertainable.
The simple details of the internal problems of Newton's law of gravity are firstly explained. Sifting through the chosen following topics should help with an appropriate transition to post Newtonian teaching of both the tides and planetary motion.
G.K.
Allowing successful theoretical predictions to take on the character of the highest possible science can move beyond democracy and cause a situation akin to personality cult. A theory based on false foundations mean its predictions, successful or otherwise, do not mean much.
Mathematical physics by and large = educationalists not lost in black holes and the like have the entrails of Aristotle's confusions to sort out for junior classrooms. The first step forward being understanding planetary motion through the motion of the sun's inverse square law. To date the Copernican revolution is based upon the fixed star falsehood of ancient civilizations.
Mathematical physics by and large = educationalists not lost in black holes and the like have the entrails of Aristotle's confusions to sort out for junior classrooms. The first step forward being understanding planetary motion through the motion of the sun's inverse square law. To date the Copernican revolution is based upon the fixed star falsehood of ancient civilizations.
If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does not cause weight.
As had or has been accepted for a number of centuries, Aristotle was amiss about the free fall rate of a rock being a factor of the mass magnitude of the rock. Ignoring the fact that free fall rate for all earth rocks is a direct factor of the earth's inverse square law magnitude, all rocks falling at the same rate because all rocks consist of two mass magnitudes that are the same is Aristotle's error adjusted into a false discipline of mathematical science.
If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does not cause weight.
As had or has been accepted for a number of centuries, Aristotle was amiss about the free fall rate of a rock being a factor of the mass magnitude of the rock. Ignoring the fact that free fall rate for all earth rocks is a direct factor of the earth's inverse square law magnitude, all rocks falling at the same rate because all rocks consist of two mass magnitudes that are the same is Aristotle's error adjusted into a false discipline of mathematical science.
The year would have been 1969. The teaching of the physics of planetary motion had just happened. The planets couldn't be ascending and descending at the same time. History was carrying a significant mistake. This was soon coupled with a more nonsensical solution to the second high tide. The lesson had the moon pulling the ocean on the far side of the earth away from itself.
At the time didn't think in terms of "I have just seen where the Einstein world is stupid". A man had just walked on the moon and interests were elsewhere. The passing sentiment was all the university people must be waiting for the right answers to these things to come along.
Twenty years later the basics of those right answers were stumbled into. Inverse square laws are moving. The planets are falling towards a moving star, not from Galileo's theoretical ascending straight line motion towards a Copernican fixed centre of gravity. With the tides it was the mathematical interaction of the earth and moon inverse square laws that explained lateral differences in earth inverse square law magnitudes. The moon wasn't directly pulling the oceans of the earth at all. Sir Isaac Newton was part of a clear analytical mistakes.
From there it started to be found that those given to acquiring a university education were giving their heart and soul to the holding of the physics of Sir Isaac Newton above public reproach. The academic point of view has been the laws have been tested by the centuries. Doubts about an apple drawing the earth as it fell were therefore not entertainable.
So the position has gradually moved to one person against what professors allow to be sound and teachable tidal and planetary motion physics at the junior school level. No harm is meant to any professor. It just happens that professors, in particular mathematical physics professors, are a world problem with their belief that Sir Isaac Newton completed the Copernican revolution product.
The unequivocal important thing is neither Galileo or Sir Isaac Newton solved planetary motion or the tides. Professors should not be allowing their solutions to be taught at the lower school level. No one, including Albert Einstein, can solve planetary motion from a motionless inverse square law starting point. Or, with the tides, without examining the arithmetic of adjacent inverse square laws simultaneously. With the name of Einstein noted, general relativity does not predict a high tide on the side of the earth away from the moon. The law, not theory, that predicts a high tide on the side of the earth away from the moon would trace back to antiquity. Today it is known today as Newton's third law. To every force there is an equal and opposite force.
On the following introductory page, the arithmetic of where the red arrow points to highlights Sir Isaac Newton's adverse failure with the inverse square law arithmetic of the universe. When living in full knowledge of the worldly debacle he is causing, not really possible to have objective beyond pointing how his base failure to those in charge of education. In Sir Isaac's mistakes the internal ineptitude of his law of gravity is explained in detail. Sifting through the chosen following topics should help with a civilized teaching transition to a common sense teaching of both the tides and planetary motion.
G.K.
I left a classroom more or less with the future of the world in my hands. The year would have been 1969. The teaching of the physics of planetary motion had just happened. The given solution was obviously falling short of the mark. The planets couldn't be ascending and descending at the same time. This was soon coupled with being taught a more nonsensical solution to the second high tide. The teacher had the moon pulling the ocean on the far side of the earth away from itself.
Mid teens at the time and didn't think in terms of "I have just seen where the Einstein world is stupid". A man had just walked on the moon and interests were elsewhere. The passing adolescent sentiment was all the university people must be waiting for the right answers to these things to come along.
Probably beginning with sub conscious thought, the basics of those answers were stumbled into back in 1987. Inverse square laws are moving. The planets are falling towards a moving star, not from Galileo's theoretical ascending motion towards his fixed centre of gravity. Then it was the mathematical interaction of the earth and moon inverse square laws that explained the tides. The moon wasn't directly pulling the oceans of the earth at all.
From there it started to be found that those given to acquiring a university education were giving their heart and soul, not so much to the gravity defying solutions of the Copernican revolution, but to the physics of Sir Isaac Newton.
So the position has gradually moved to one person against what professors and the like say is tidal an planetary motion truth. The printed word and the world as it stands is in the professor's corner so see what happens. You would expect the one person to get done like a dinner. 1996 was the year of the realization of a probable relationship between inverse square law turn rates and day lengths. The idea of the universe being what is happening at the intersection of three dimensions roughly 1989. They are just add ons, though. The unequivocal important thing is neither Galileo or Sir Isaac Newton understood planetary motion or the tides. And no one, including Albert Einstein, can from a motionless inverse square law starting point or without examining the arithmetic of adjacent inverse square laws. With that name mentioned, general relativity does not predict a high tide on the side of the earth away from the moon. The law that predicts a high tide on the side of the earth away from the moon would trace back to antiquity. Today it is known today as Newton's third law. To every force there is an equal and opposite force. That law predicts there should be like tides on direct opposite sides of the planet. In comparison, general relativity is a nuisance to life on earth. For those who have been living off what Einstein's theories are able to predict, an appropriate mention that many accurate celestial predictions were made prior to the Copernican revolution from the false celestial foundation of an earth fixed in the centre of the universe. Equation based predictions are a dog's breakfast.
G.K.
Regarding the web page title, there is work to be done. Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity is a relic from another age. By now Sir Isaac's mass multiplied mass edict is an irrelevant societal handicap we carry forth as our galactic journey continues. The only thing we can do in our own favour is wake up to Sir Isaac's false presumption. With today's widespread access to the internet, most anybody who wants can be or is a global scientist. Without much ado, the value of Sir Isaac's idea of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe can be reviewed by average mouse clickers.
Regarding the web page URL, in high likelihood day length clues is an entrance through to planetary rotation rates. A modest en route gambler placing a passing investment on the 24 hours in the earth and Mars days being factors of each other should do okay.
Many physicists and mathematical physicists have followed Sir Isaac. Ones dealing with the most complex of equations that otherwise befuddle the rest of us. But none seemed to have considered the basic premise Sir Isaac was building his law from. That being how inverse square laws mathematically extend through each other to reach the rest of the universe.
Being the state arbiters of schoolbook physics today, physicists and mathematical physicists are educationally obliged to take leave from any complex equations they have underway and consider the arithmetic of where the red arrow above points to.
The outcome should be imprimatur locally given to government to bring about a teaching transition from a mutually gravitating universe to a non mutually gravitating universe.
The problem has been an observation of the high tide under the moon suggesting to physicists that the moon attracts the earth. Proper analysis says that's the illusion of where the red arrow points. Only the smaller of an adjacent pair of bodies accelerates towards the larger. The converse is a classical mistake of world history.
When living in full knowledge of mutual gravitation not being the truth of the universe, there isn't objective beyond leaving the world in peace. Sifting through the chosen topics should allow ordered teaching transition from Sir Isaac's apple story to a common sense teaching of both the tides and planetary motion.
G.K.
This planet would be better suited to simple survival if Sir Isaac Newton and his apple story had not become part of its history. There would still be the inverse square law of fall rate diminish. We would still have space ventures aplenty. The likely difference would be non self indoctrination about a mutually gravitating universe.
The inverse square law of fall rate diminish was deduced a number of centuries ago. Beyond being connected with Sir Isaac in some way or other, most of us on the planet do life and living knowing little about this law of 'gravity'. It is not something that has to be concentrated upon during basic daily events.
Even so getting to understand the tides through the law is going to be a pretty delicate part of the world affairs of any era. The simplicity of the law is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the body. As this surface area increases with vertical distance increase above the earth, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
The inverse square law of fall rate diminish was deduced a number of centuries ago. Beyond being connected with Sir Isaac in some way or other, most of us on the planet do life and living knowing little about this law of 'gravity'. It is not something that has to be concentrated upon during basic daily events.
Even so getting to understand the tides through the law is going to be a pretty delicate part of the world affairs of any era. The simplicity of the law is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the body. As this surface area increases with vertical distance increase above the earth, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
Sir Isaac Newton is credited with having a mind to see that if one mass in the universe has a gravity field, then every mass in the universe will have a gravity field. Most plausibly influenced by the high tide under the moon, he has then taken the step of saying every mass in the universe will be attracting every other mass in the universe. He admitted that he didn't know how this could be so. Just said it would be and declared a formula that said as much.
The formula was dependent on the inverse square law of the earth, for example, extending to where ever any other mass in the universe exists. Which, on astronomical assessments, are distances away from the earth greater than can be humanly comprehended.
We have had many mathematical geniuses following Newton. Ones who can deal with the most complex of equations that otherwise befuddle the rest of us. But none of these geniuses seemed to have asked or answered the basic Newtonian question. That being how could the earth's inverse square law mathematically extend to every other mass in the universe.
The answer is it couldn't. The school books are substantially wrong about both the tides and planetary motion. Mathematically the tides are demonstrable as an alteration to the earth's inverse square law. Not a pull from the moon at all. Planetary motion is demonstrable as the result of a high altitude descent in a moving inverse square.
Whether or not anyone wants the demonstrations is one matter. The world living in confusion about the universe while universal gravitation continues to be taught at the lower school level is another matter. Here's hoping someone takes this seriously. If mathematical physicists can admit to be wrong about universal gravitation, the world is going to have more hope for itself.
Whether we like it or not, we live in what is known as the Copernican revolution. The unfortunate thing is the revolution has a few things wrong.
The Copernican revolution is the paradigm shift from teaching the earth is the centre of the universe to originally teaching the sun is the centre of the universe. The rights and wrongs of the Copernican revolution reside in the domain of a profession known as mathematical physics.
The revolution uncovered something quite amazing about the universe. Beyond having something to do with Sir Isaac newton and an apple, most on the planet know go through life knowing little about the inverse square law of fall rate diminish. It is technical and has next to nothing to do with waking up in the morning and going about the bread and butter of daily life.
Nevertheless, the law is a delicate piece of knowledge and is our doorway into greater knowledge of the universe. What it means is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the earth. As that area increases with vertical distance increase, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
The Copernican revolution is the paradigm shift from teaching the earth is the centre of the universe to originally teaching the sun is the centre of the universe. The rights and wrongs of the Copernican revolution reside in the domain of a profession known as mathematical physics.
The revolution uncovered something quite amazing about the universe. Beyond having something to do with Sir Isaac newton and an apple, most on the planet know go through life knowing little about the inverse square law of fall rate diminish. It is technical and has next to nothing to do with waking up in the morning and going about the bread and butter of daily life.
Nevertheless, the law is a delicate piece of knowledge and is our doorway into greater knowledge of the universe. What it means is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the earth. As that area increases with vertical distance increase, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
Sir Isaac Newton is credited with having a mind to see that if one mass in the universe has a gravity field, then every mass in the universe will have a gravity field. Most plausibly influenced by the high tide under the moon, he has then taken the step of saying every mass in the universe will be attracting every other mass in the universe. He admitted that he didn't know how this could be so. Just said it would be and declared a formula that said as much.
The formula was dependent on the inverse square law of the earth, for example, extending to where ever any other mass in the universe exists. Which, on astronomical assessments, are distances away from the earth greater than can be humanly comprehended.
We have had many mathematical geniuses following Newton. Ones who can deal with the most complex of equations that otherwise befuddle the rest of us. But none of these geniuses seemed to have asked or answered the basic Newtonian question. That being how could the earth's inverse square law mathematically extend to every other mass in the universe.
In that you don't have to be a mathematical genius to see the mathematics of the earth's inverse square law not extending more that about 260,000 kilometres from the earth, this is where things probably get to be a moment of truth for those who trade as mathematicians.
If that 260,000 kilometre figure is correct, to be honest mathematical geniuses have to throw out their quasi infinite figure and start their view of the universe once more.
If the figure is right, the solar system is vastly different to the way we get taught about it at school. To get the figure all you do is what is done prior to a moonshot. That being working out where the spaceship will leave one inverse square law and enter another.
Universal gravitation carries an after the fact drawing power anomaly and is structurally incoherent as well.
For those not so familiar with what the Copernican revolution refers to, it is a scholastic shift from believing that the earth is fixed in the centre of the universe to new scholars saying that is a mistake. Observations are now telling us that the earth is a planet in motion around the star that we call the sun.
At secondary school an earlier childhood acceptance of the revolution became a qualified one. What was taught as the reason that the planets orbit the sun didn't make sense. The teacher had the planets ascending and descending at the same time. When the teacher's inadequacy about planetary motion was coupled with his explaining one high tide happens because the moon pulls the earth away from the earth, school was left unimpressed with where higher education was or would be at. For all of man just having walked on the moon, to be teaching junk explanations of the tides and planetary motion in the late sixties last century was decidedly uninspiring. Something was awry in the Copernican revolution.
Today if everyone is happy with the world as it is, sorry for butting in. With a presumption of that apology being unneeded, the basic answer to world affairs is to teach the motions of the stars at the junior school level. In particular the motion of the sun that we live our lives by. Understandable as it was, fixing the sun in the centre of the universe was the gross mistake of the Copernican revolution.
Also at that the junior school level, considering a connection between gravity field rotation rates and the day lengths of the planets would be a step in the right direction. It's unlikely that the similar day lengths of outer planets is coincidence.
The last academic upheaval came from observations in dispute with the earth being the centre of the universe. This next one comes from simple dispute with the way governments teach junior school physics. The brunt of the upheaval impacts upon those who trade under the guise of mathematical physicist.
The parts of Einstein's work that are dependent on mutual gravitation or what is known as the principle of equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass are going to be in need of fresh evaluation is all. Those concepts being errant views of the universe is a founding upheaval moment.
What that means is that if you were driven by mathematics at a lower school level and have advanced through Newtonian physics to the mathematical physics view of the universe, you are yet to understand the physics of either the tides or planetary motion. And that over rating complex equations is your crime against humanity. Complex equations are not going to be the doorway into the universe. The inverse square law on its own can only be.
The parts of Einstein's work that are dependent on mutual gravitation or what is known as the principle of equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass are going to be in need of fresh evaluation is all. Those concepts being errant views of the universe is a founding upheaval moment.
What that means is that if you were driven by mathematics at a lower school level and have advanced through Newtonian physics to the mathematical physics view of the universe, you are yet to understand the physics of either the tides or planetary motion. And that over rating complex equations is your crime against humanity. Complex equations are not going to be the doorway into the universe. The inverse square law on its own can only be.
The Cavendish setting of Newton's second law equal to Sir Isaac's mutual formula demonstrates.......
1/ the mutual formula has been formed in error
2/ that, without specifying what he had done to his readers or ensuing history, Sir Isaac used his second law in a roundabout way to irresponsibly formulate a law of universal gravitation.
If the large mass is unfixed in a Cavendish experiment and observed to move, the mathematics of the reason why will not be found in Sir Isaac's mutual formula.
The salient point being an original moonshot recognition of the discontinuity of both fall directions in between particles says a mutual or universal gravitation of the universe is a faulty academic thought pattern.
If a mathematical physicist can maintain universal gravitation through that algebraic implication, all the best to the world. Through improved lower school education, hopefully the era of mathematical physicists trying to make Newtonian untruths truth in complex ways can come to an end
When you have to calm the claims of academic geniuses down, not being a natural arguer or wordsmith or possessing a wish to be famous makes the going tough. The final confidence to do this job came from waking in the middle of the night and, for whatever reason, setting the acceleration of the larger mass of a Cavendish experiment equal to Sir Isaac's law of universal gravitation. The standard way of calculating the constant of mutual gravitation is, through Newton's second law, just setting the acceleration of the smaller mass equal to the mutual gravitation of the two masses. When both masses are individually set equal to the mutual gravitation of the two masses the law falls apart. Bit like Al Capone being tried for a tax matter rather than gangland crimes, in the end its simple algebra and not physics that makes universal gravitation untenable at a junior school glance.
Mathematically the presence of the moon's inverse square law alters the earth's inverse square law. The basic mathematics demonstrating the alteration has been done or will have been done prior to a moonshot. All it amounts to is finding where the spaceship will leave the earth's gravity field and enter the moon's gravity field.
What hasn't been done is seeing the alteration as the reason we observe a high tide under the moon. If and when we do see such we learn that Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation is a mathematical impossibility. At this stage we are still mistakenly living and teaching the alteration as evidence of the moon possessing a force that extends to the earth to cause high tides. When the moonshot arithmetic is done and understood, the tides are then apparent as as a lunar induced alteration of the earth's inverse square law. At that stage the Newtonian extension of a lunar force to the earth becomes non existent. A redundant false belief as it were.
Most of us on the planet do not live and breath the inverse square law of diminishing fall rate or have a great awareness of it. This law was originally deduced a number of centuries ago through what is known as Johannes Kepler's third law of planetary motion. It is a delicate piece of knowledge and is our doorway into greater knowledge of the universe. What it means is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the earth. As that area increases with vertical distance increase, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
With the smaller masses being cancelled out, beyond Sir Isaac's life the on paper proof of the mutual formula is a setting of Newton's second law equal to itself. When the smaller masses are cancelled out, Cavendish experiments demonstrate that 'gravity' is a rate of acceleration. Not a force at all as is taught at junior school. When a schoolteacher says 'force due to gravity', he or she really means 'acceleration due an inverse square law.' The salient point being an original moonshot recognition of the discontinuity of both fall directions in between particles says a junior school formula of mutual gravitation for the whole universe was always going to produce scholastic mayhem about the nature of the universe when set lose in the minds of professors and university graduates in general.
As well the modern evidence would show the proportion Sir Isaac was assuming would be between the product of quantity and surface area. Not simply quantity. For example, we now know the moon has 1/6 of the surface gravity of the earth. Whether we accurately know the moon's mass or not, it has about 1/50 of the volume of the earth. The moon has been assessed to have about 1/81 of the mass of the earth.[(earth's surface area x 9.8)/(moon's surface area x 1.6 = 82.4)]. Post mutual gravitation academic assessments of celestial mass magnitudes are required.
The reason the Copernican revolution is wrong is simple. The sun is not fixed in space. Whatever the upheaval to scholarship was when it became undeniable that the earth is in motion, the only real way ahead for the world is something similar.
It would seem that intellectuals scrambling to find mathematics to explain the universe is killing life on earth. Democracy willing, something can be done about it. The Copernican revolution has developed impossible physics to explain both the tides and planetary motion. And hence the universe.
It should be pointed out that the inverse square law of fall rate diminish is not Newton's universal law of gravitation. The inverse square law has been demonstrated to be right. Universal gravitation is a presumption about everything accelerating towards everything else. The presumption is attributed to Sir Isaac Newton. By now it should have been removed from junior school curricula. It is clearly a mistake of the ages.
Sir Isaac Newton has delivered a corrupted view of the universe to the Copernican revolution. As a result the world is in a bigger mess than necessary. The mystery is how anyone with a university education has been bluffed into believing Sir Isaac's every particle in the universe proclamation. Something about apple stories seems to be the answer. It's clearly a nonsense of yesterday year and, by now, is going to take a bit of unraveling. Very hard task to take on as a lone individual, particularly when you aren't given to stringing words together. But, with due considerations for the mathematical pride of the world as it stands, hopefully a start on the unraveling has been made with this web page.
Sir Isaac Newton has delivered a corrupted view of the universe to the Copernican revolution. As a result the world is in a bigger mess than necessary. The mystery is how anyone with a university education has been bluffed into believing Sir Isaac's every particle in the universe proclamation. Something about apple stories seems to be the answer. It's clearly a nonsense of yesterday year and, by now, is going to take a bit of unraveling. Very hard task to take on as a lone individual, particularly when you aren't given to stringing words together. But, with due considerations for the mathematical pride of the world as it stands, hopefully a start on the unraveling has been made with this web page.
The something awry in the Copernican revolution is two. One is Newton's law of universal gravitation. The other is Newton's first law of motion. If high end academics wake up to the fact that each of these laws is a false science, scholarship, computers and all, is more or less back at the beginning of the Copernican revolution again.
The essential discovery that takes scholars back is the discovery of the motion of the sun and the rest of the stars. The other discovery is also thanks to modern telescopes. It is the day lengths of all the planets. Coupled with the superior motion of the sun, if the added centre column to the day length table is of merit and professors care, universal gravitation and Newton's first law of motion are simply schoolbook things of the past.
The essential discovery that takes scholars back is the discovery of the motion of the sun and the rest of the stars. The other discovery is also thanks to modern telescopes. It is the day lengths of all the planets. Coupled with the superior motion of the sun, if the added centre column to the day length table is of merit and professors care, universal gravitation and Newton's first law of motion are simply schoolbook things of the past.
Or the other way around. Einstein may nave become Aristotle. Both were revered thinkers of their times and both based their ideas on mass being a factor of free fall rate. Somewhere within what follows, there is sheer embarrassment. That geniuses could believe that mass = mass is of meaning says scholarship is not going as well as scholars are reckoning.
Sacrosanct as the Copernican revolution maybe to professors almighty, they are not within a bull's roar of understanding the tides or planetary motion. Through Newtonian physics, we all get taught that stuff wrong at the secondary school level. Sir Isaac Newton has overstepped the mark with his universal gravitation. His first law of motion is an abomination of the ages.
Mathematically the presence of the moon's inverse square law alters the earth's inverse square law. The basic mathematics demonstrating the alteration has been done or will have been done prior to a moonshot. All it amounts to is finding where the spaceship will leave the earth's gravity field and enter the moon's gravity field.
What hasn't been done is seeing the alteration as the reason we observe a high tide under the moon. If and when we do see such we learn that Sir Isaac Newton's law of the mutual gravitation of the universe is an impossibility. At this stage we are still mistakenly living and teaching the alteration as evidence of the moon possessing a force that extends to the earth and draws an ocean towards the moon. When the moonshot arithmetic is done, that extension becomes non existent.
It should be pointed out that the inverse square law of fall rate diminish is not Newton's universal law of gravitation. The inverse square law has been demonstrated to be right.
Most on the planet do not live and breath the inverse square law of diminishing fall rate or have a great awareness of it. This law was originally deduced a number of centuries ago through what is known as Johannes Kepler's third law of planetary motion. It is a delicate piece of knowledge and is our doorway into greater knowledge of the universe. What it means is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the earth. As that area increases with vertical distance increase, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
Anyway, my name is George Kingston and, since early childhood, believed in what is known as the Copernican revolution. For those not so familiar with what the revolution refers to it is a scholastic shift from believing that the earth is fixed in the centre of the universe to new scholars saying that is a mistake. Observations are now telling us that the earth is a planet in motion around the star that we call the sun.
At secondary school that early childhood belief became a qualified one. What was taught as the reason that the planets orbit the sun didn't make sense. The teacher had the planets ascending and descending at the same time. When the teachers inadequacy about planetary motion was coupled with his explaining one high tide happens because the moon pulls the earth away from the earth, school was left unimpressed with where higher education was or would be at. For all of man just having walked on the moon, to be teaching junk explanations of the tides and planetary motion in the late sixties was unimpressive. Something was awry in the Copernican revolution.
As long as mathematical geniuses can handle having two of Sir Isaac's laws being removed from within Einstein's theories, an invalidation of universal gravitation and Newton's first law of motion should set the world going a bit better. Unless mathematical geniuses are intellectual pansies, they should be able to adapt to the motion of the sun's inverse square and take an open minded approach to the centre column above. As yet there is not an explanation of the various rotation rates of the planets. If they do happen to be linked up through the rotations of their gravity fields, it's the beginning of a new era of scholarship. One that any scholar should be happy to be part of.
[email protected]
Mathematically the presence of the moon's inverse square law alters the earth's inverse square law. Until the arithmetic of adjacent inverse square laws is done, the alteration gives the impression of the moon possessing a force that extends to the earth and pulls an ocean towards the moon. That impression is what Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity has been based upon.
My name is George Kingston. As long as chaos doesn't ensue after it becomes realistic that you cant trust mathematical geniuses with the universe, what follows is just what the world needs. A document to take care of basic history up until this point of time. In high probability we are going to find that there is nexus between the tides and the rotation rates of the planets. Coupled with the discovery of the motion of the sun, this rotation rate table with its added middle column is history in the making.
My name is George Kingston. As long as chaos doesn't ensue after it becomes realistic that you cant trust mathematical geniuses with the universe, what follows is just what the world needs. A document to take care of basic history up until this point of time. In high probability we are going to find that there is nexus between the tides and the rotation rates of the planets. Coupled with the discovery of the motion of the sun, this rotation rate table with its added middle column is history in the making.
Our post Newton mathematical geniuses are living a simple apple mistake. Smaller masses cannot accelerate larger masses. Their smaller inverse square laws are arithmetically unable to extend to the larger mass. Most likely the problem traces back to original celestial observations. The high tide under the moon has tricked cavemen into assessing that the moon possesses a force that extends all the way to the earth. That extension is at the heart of modern mathematical physics. But it isn't reality. The moons inverse square law is insufficient relative to the earth's to actually reach the earth. It's presence though alters the earth's inverse square law giving the impression of the moon pulling an ocean under the moon.
Realistically, only a non mathematical genius not living the mistake can point the mistake out. Equally so, a non genius can't make a mathematical genius consider that they are looking at the tides like the cavemen did. Not when they have used buttons and apparatus to guide men to the moon and back.
That difficulty aside, from here a non genius has invalidated Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation. Academics worth their salt will rectify what has become an elaborate ruse of physics and begin the teaching of sensible earth physics. Which only means professors maintaining their lecterns while privately conferring and revamping their notes about 'gravity' and also 'inertia'.
G.K. [email protected]
Realistically, only a non mathematical genius not living the mistake can point the mistake out. Equally so, a non genius can't make a mathematical genius consider that they are looking at the tides like the cavemen did. Not when they have used buttons and apparatus to guide men to the moon and back.
That difficulty aside, from here a non genius has invalidated Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation. Academics worth their salt will rectify what has become an elaborate ruse of physics and begin the teaching of sensible earth physics. Which only means professors maintaining their lecterns while privately conferring and revamping their notes about 'gravity' and also 'inertia'.
G.K. [email protected]
Unfortunately our post Newton geniuses are living a mistake. Smaller masses do not attract larger masses. The high earth tide under the moon may have caused the original genius of Newton to presume that the smaller mass of the moon is attracting the larger mass of the earth. Sir Isaac, though, has totally missed the science of the tides. He simply did not do the mathematics of opposite directions of fall that he needed to and has fabricated an answer to the tides.
To schoolboy eyes the moon couldn't pull the earth towards the moon and the earth away from the earth at the same time. Some part of the earth would need to be pulled at two magnitudes at once. The mathematics of that would be impossible.
So the equal and opposite explanation was a pleasure to find. Almost immediately you know its knowledge bigger than yourself. When you get to see a university a professor tells you "no one will listen to you here". So you find yourself on your own with the physics of the world. And you end up with all the interesting topics you see on the menu. The only one of real relevance is the first one. The invalidation of Sir Isaac's law of universal gravitation. A scientific professor has no option but to take the topic seriously. It's taught as fact at the junior school level and the responsibility of a professor is making sure that what is taught at the junior school level is in keeping with known facts.
In the defence of non listening professors, Sir Isaac having made a mistake about the capabilities of his apple is virtually unprecedented. Ptolemy making a mistake about the earth being in the centre of the universe is similar. But no one can predict what will happen when it becomes known that academics are looking at the universe with a mistake about an apple in their heads. So, from a professor's point of view, it could be argued that maintaining the status quo of their mistake is in the world's best interest. In the end, though, that does not justify teaching an untruth about an apple to the next generation.
To schoolboy eyes the moon couldn't pull the earth towards the moon and the earth away from the earth at the same time. Some part of the earth would need to be pulled at two magnitudes at once. The mathematics of that would be impossible.
So the equal and opposite explanation was a pleasure to find. Almost immediately you know its knowledge bigger than yourself. When you get to see a university a professor tells you "no one will listen to you here". So you find yourself on your own with the physics of the world. And you end up with all the interesting topics you see on the menu. The only one of real relevance is the first one. The invalidation of Sir Isaac's law of universal gravitation. A scientific professor has no option but to take the topic seriously. It's taught as fact at the junior school level and the responsibility of a professor is making sure that what is taught at the junior school level is in keeping with known facts.
In the defence of non listening professors, Sir Isaac having made a mistake about the capabilities of his apple is virtually unprecedented. Ptolemy making a mistake about the earth being in the centre of the universe is similar. But no one can predict what will happen when it becomes known that academics are looking at the universe with a mistake about an apple in their heads. So, from a professor's point of view, it could be argued that maintaining the status quo of their mistake is in the world's best interest. In the end, though, that does not justify teaching an untruth about an apple to the next generation.
For more fun, professors / animators could put the rotations of the planets and their moons on moving sun planetary motion animations.
As a side note to the rewrite that follows, having to deal with Einstein as well has been a pain in the neck. Mainly, if it is not arrested, professors proclaiming that an apple attracts the earth as it falls is likely to be the downfall of mankind. We are going better than what we seem to be. Just have a few problems of scholarship to sort out.
[email protected]
Believe it or not it's not possible for an apple to attract this planet. The apple is to small to perform this feat. As a consequence physics needs to be rewritten for our professors.
Problems go back to the B.C. era. More recently someone by the name of Sir Isaac Newton blinded peers. With a fresh take on mathematics, he did this a little over three hundred years ago. The fresh take was able to calculate planetary paths relative to a fixed sun. The inflicted blindness caused a fresh scholastic belief to commence in earnest. The belief was of a natural marriage between the disciplines of physics and mathematics. Any ignorance that Sir Isaac had about the physics of falling apples and a few other things were swept into the new union. Henceforth complex ways of making the physics of Sir Isaac functional became the order of the day. From there the discipline of mathematical physics worked its way through to the black holes and the big bang that get debated in academic circles today. But, to at least one schoolboy, Sir Isaac had made a few inglorious mistakes of physics.
Problems go back to the B.C. era. More recently someone by the name of Sir Isaac Newton blinded peers. With a fresh take on mathematics, he did this a little over three hundred years ago. The fresh take was able to calculate planetary paths relative to a fixed sun. The inflicted blindness caused a fresh scholastic belief to commence in earnest. The belief was of a natural marriage between the disciplines of physics and mathematics. Any ignorance that Sir Isaac had about the physics of falling apples and a few other things were swept into the new union. Henceforth complex ways of making the physics of Sir Isaac functional became the order of the day. From there the discipline of mathematical physics worked its way through to the black holes and the big bang that get debated in academic circles today. But, to at least one schoolboy, Sir Isaac had made a few inglorious mistakes of physics.
The intriguing thing is it's not particularly hard to see the mistaken vectors in the Newtonian concepts of the tides and planetary motion. Undoubtedly, though, to still be teaching an apple attracts the earth is going against the better part of human nature.
For whatever it's worth, the one originally taking Newton's third law down to the centre of the earth can only be or is an embarrassed associative image. A job of yesterday year academia done today = someone is sheepish about having had the simple wherewithal at school to see that the moon couldn't pull water away from itself.
It has been found that no one in academic circles is in a position to take questions about any of the issues raised on this diagram. Through the eyes of an academic, evidently entertainment of problems in Sir Isaac's basic physics would be tantamount to treason.
So sedition. The maker of this web page would like to see it as a necessary junior school prerequisite. Not to be taken as gospel. Simply born out of the above diagram and to be considered alongside treating Newtonian physics as the gospel. Pretty much as long as junior schooling is aware of the uphill vector taught through Copernican revolution planetary motion, civilization should be in good hands.
As a side note to what follows, having to deal with Einstein as well has been a pain in the neck. On the bright side, dealing with the mistakes within Sir Isaac's work is not overly hard. Once they are dealt with, there isn't much Einstein left. Mainly school teachers proclaiming to their classes that an apple attracts the earth as it falls is likely to be the downfall of civilization. The opinion, justified in what follows, is it's a porky that has the world going against its own better nature.
[email protected]
There is a flaw in progressive adolescent education. A pass mark and truth are presumed. Quite possibly the flaw can never be rectified. The way to become qualified as a professor is passing junior school education examinations. Professors are in charge of junior school education. So if a mistake is being taught at the junior school level, on the way to becoming one, professors become part of the mistake.
[email protected]
In that the web page maker saw the arithmetical anomaly in Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity while at school, the invalidation of his law of gravity and anything of merit that follows is the Australian education system of the sixties last century at work at a later hour. As a side note, having to deal with Einstein as well has been a pain in the neck. Luckily dealing with the mistakes within Sir Isaac's laws is relatively simple. Once they are dealt with, there isn't much Einstein left. Mainly professors telling the world an apple attracts the earth is likely to be the downfall of civilization. Someone has to stand up to Sir Isaac's apple story.
[email protected]
Professors Wyithe, Quiney, Morgan and Helmerson, the heads of the Melbourne and Monash Universities physics departments, were all provided with hard copies of this invalidation of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity. They were asked to check the invalidation out. They were not presented with what Sir Isaac's mistake about an apple drawing the earth is secluding. That's all just there for when and if the penny drops about what an unedifying mess mathematical physics really is.
As it worked out all professors went to ground afterwards and have become uncontactable.
In a democracy like Australia it would be presumed that parliamentarians would not wish for something that was plainly wrong to be taught in their electorates or states. And that they would wish for their professors to be diligent about matters of education. Thus you are contacted. You maybe able to locate professors prepared to be democratically answerable for Newton's law of gravity.
In that the web page maker saw the arithmetical anomaly in Sir Isaac's law of gravity while at school, the invalidation and anything of merit that follows is the Australian education system at work. Incidentally. In some shape or form I have been trying to get this message through for thirty years. When you believe in education, it's not something you can give up on. It's just that finding someone in a position of educational power to take responsibility for the structure of Newton's law of gravity is not easy.
[email protected]
Professors Wyithe, Quiney, Morgan and Helmerson, the heads of the Melbourne and Monash Universities physics departments, were all provided with hard copies of this invalidation of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity. They were asked to check it out. As it worked out all went to ground afterwards and have become uncontactable.
In that the web page maker saw the arithmetical anomaly in Sir Isaac's law of gravity while at school, the invalidation and anything of merit that follows is the Australian education system at work. As should be seen, the motive for invalidating the law is not simply the invalidation. It's getting an educational focus on the tides as they are at the centre of the earth. At this stage Sir Isaac's apple story is preventing an obvious application of his own third law to the core of the earth. After the boredom of going through the nonsense within Sir Isaac's law of gravity, applying Sir Isaac's equal and opposite force law to the centre of the earth should be one of the best things that ever happens on earth. Something that holds the earth in good stead for as long as there is an earth.
[email protected]
The centre column of the above table is not an official part of scholarship yet but. But be very surprised if it is unable to fill the academic hole caused by revelation of Sir Isaac's fib about an apple attracting the earth. After the boredom of going through the nonsense within Sir Isaac's laws, the column should excite the world. We are going a lot better than what we think we are. Just not going all that well if officialdom sticks with Sir Isaac's apple story.
[email protected]
The centre column of the above table is not an official part of scholarship yet but. But be very surprised if it is unable to fill the academic hole caused by revelation of Sir Isaac's fib about an apple attracting the earth. After the boredom of going through the nonsense within Sir Isaac's laws, the column should excite the world. We are going a lot better than what we think we are. Just not going all that well if officialdom sticks with Sir Isaac's apple story.
[email protected]
Professors Wyithe, Quiney, Morgan and Helmerson, the heads of the Melbourne and Monash Universities physics departments, were all provided with hard copies of this invalidation of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity and asked to check it out.
Disappointingly, they all went to ground soon after.
In a case like this and if Australia is a democracy, professors should be accountable to parliament for not providing their position one way or the other on the invalidation. The issue at hand is teaching and maintaining a lie as part of junior school curricula in the Commonwealth of Australia. Now that members of parliament has access to the invalidation, rightfully they should ask for a written verdict from an Australian professor.
In that the web page maker saw the arithmetical anomaly in Sir Isaac's law of gravity while at school, the invalidation and anything of merit that follows is the Australian education system at work.
If the law survives the invalidation, the rest is immaterial. Realistically, though, it's dead. If it's wanted, a better world through the schoolbooks awaits. The rest might be useful to schoolteachers as they wake up from the spell Sir Isaac cast over the world.
[email protected]
If no one can find fault in this invalidation of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity, it's like it always was. A grandiose statement made by a confused mind of the past. One that has done formal education and the world at large significant disservice.
The three reasons the law is invalid are 1/ mass/drawing ability anomaly, 2/ a vector oversight and 3/ original structural incoherence.
Professors Wyithe, Quiney, Morgan and Helmerson, the heads of the Melbourne and Monash Universities physics departments, were asked to see if they see fault in the invalidation. Disappointingly, they all went to ground. Simple as it is, the invalidation opens up new doors into the universe. In particular the probable reason of the rotation rates of the planets comes to the fore.
The three reasons the law is invalid are 1/ mass/drawing ability anomaly, 2/ a vector oversight and 3/ original structural incoherence.
Professors Wyithe, Quiney, Morgan and Helmerson, the heads of the Melbourne and Monash Universities physics departments, were asked to see if they see fault in the invalidation. Disappointingly, they all went to ground. Simple as it is, the invalidation opens up new doors into the universe. In particular the probable reason of the rotation rates of the planets comes to the fore.
mass = mass = genius mathematicians have a glib and fundamentally flawed approach to life on earth. The world doesn't have much chance when those with more intelligence than the rest of us are mainly interested in projecting the fact that they are geniuses relatively to everyone else.
The nub of Sir Isaac's gravity plight was seeing a need for both action and force to be conveyed through space. Descents (actions) are an occurrence. Considering its descents to be conveyed through space is or was a falsity and also an over complication of any observation of a falling apple. Alternatively not distinguishing between and conjoining action and force in his apple - earth logic strongly indicates a scalar mirror image of his second law to be Newtonian founding stone of his law of gravity.
The motion of the earth's inverse square law is the key to a satellite orbiting within the motion of the earth's inverse square law. Along with the fixed inverse square law mistake of the Copernican revolution itself, that = a rocket science peripheral problem about the geometric impossibility of fixed earth escape velocity + fixed earth descent velocity = fixed earth suspended velocity.
The central concern = an impossible solution to planetary motion being upheld by academia/government in junior schools.
In the story of Sir Isaac Newton and his apple, the apple drawing the earth remains the unsubstantiated portion. Moreso this section of the tale was always a clear mistake on Sir Isaac's part and should never have become part of school curricula. The apple draws earth idea was likely induced by the high tide under the moon. Paradoxically it is a regular understanding of all the tides of the earth that the fable secludes from those who responsibility for school curricula has subsequently fallen to.......
Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal/mutual gravitation and then its several structural errors within ..........
If no one can find fault in this invalidation of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity, it's like it always was. Plain mistaken. Falling apples do not move the earth.
More broadly what's ahead is the potential for junior school learning to take the world past the Copernican revolution. Just as scholarship was once based upon a fixed earth mistake, the Copernican revolution is arguably based on a mistake of greater intellectual significance. That mistake is the planets are not orbiting a fixed sun. By now the telescope has well and truly told us the planets are orbiting a star with a motion superior to that of the planets relative to the sun. An addition that superior motion to that of planets relative to the sun is long overdue.
In the first instance and ideally physics professors and physics teachers will offer this webpage to their students to see if their students can find fault in the invalidation. If they can't, the world is theirs.
[email protected]
More broadly what's ahead is the potential for junior school learning to take the world past the Copernican revolution. Just as scholarship was once based upon a fixed earth mistake, the Copernican revolution is arguably based on a mistake of greater intellectual significance. That mistake is the planets are not orbiting a fixed sun. By now the telescope has well and truly told us the planets are orbiting a star with a motion superior to that of the planets relative to the sun. An addition that superior motion to that of planets relative to the sun is long overdue.
In the first instance and ideally physics professors and physics teachers will offer this webpage to their students to see if their students can find fault in the invalidation. If they can't, the world is theirs.
[email protected]
The earth does not orbit the sun. The earth's apparent direction of fall towards the sun is what is in orbit of the sun.
The earth itself is pendulically swinging across the speed of the sun. Relative to descent, what's missing from the Copernican revolution is the superior motion of the inverse square law.........
This is not exactly where the fixed sun inverse square law mistake begins. The idea traces back to the B.C. period. This is where the mistake began to find its way into accepted scholarship.
“The sun is not inappropriately called by some people the lantern of the universe, its mind by others, and its ruler by still others. The Thrice Greatest labels it a visible god, and Sophocles’ Electra, the all-seeing. Thus indeed, as though seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the family of planets revolving around it.”
1. There is no one centre of all the celestial circles or spheres.
2. The centre of the earth is not the centre of the universe, but only of gravity and of the lunar sphere.
3. All the spheres revolve about the sun as their midpoint, and therefore the sun is the centre of the universe.
Nicholas Copernicus, 1473 - 1543. (link)
Whether in the centre of the universe or not, planets could not be suspended above a fixed sun.
If no one can find fault in this disproving of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity, it's like it always was. Plain wrong. Falling apples do not move the earth. Importantly the component of the tides that the law has been hiding is the equalization of downward force across the centre of the earth. That tidal component needs worldwide attention.
More broadly what's ahead is the potential for junior school learning to take the world past the Copernican revolution. Just as scholarship was once based upon a fixed earth mistake, the Copernican revolution is arguably based on a mistake of greater intellectual consequence. That mistake is the planets are not orbiting a fixed sun. By now the telescope has well and truly told us the planets are orbiting a star with a motion superior to that of the planets relative to the sun.
It is unlikely that anyone is going to initially like this. Unequivocally, for the world to measure up to its own overall development, the learned have to go back and add the motions of the planets around the sun to the motion of the sun. And then allow the addition to become part of junior school curricula.
Realistically, it isn't plausible that only one student has ever left classrooms disenchanted with the way the tides and planetary motion were taught. The question is more along the lines of why Albert Einstein and those of his ilk haven't.
Pointedly no one here is grandstanding about having been born and then smelling a rat in Copernican revolution physics. If someone else was now doing this belated job of announcing to the Copernican revolution that the sun is actually moving, all would be happier. In this case it was late sixties last century when school was left in disrespect of the teacher's solutions to the tides and planetary motion.
Anyway, one student is now one person apparently on his own with an acute awareness of high scholarship choosing to almost inexplicably retard itself back at the fixed sun level. The first concern is the falling apples handicap that gets forced down throats back at junior school.
[email protected]
More broadly what's ahead is the potential for junior school learning to take the world past the Copernican revolution. Just as scholarship was once based upon a fixed earth mistake, the Copernican revolution is arguably based on a mistake of greater intellectual consequence. That mistake is the planets are not orbiting a fixed sun. By now the telescope has well and truly told us the planets are orbiting a star with a motion superior to that of the planets relative to the sun.
It is unlikely that anyone is going to initially like this. Unequivocally, for the world to measure up to its own overall development, the learned have to go back and add the motions of the planets around the sun to the motion of the sun. And then allow the addition to become part of junior school curricula.
Realistically, it isn't plausible that only one student has ever left classrooms disenchanted with the way the tides and planetary motion were taught. The question is more along the lines of why Albert Einstein and those of his ilk haven't.
Pointedly no one here is grandstanding about having been born and then smelling a rat in Copernican revolution physics. If someone else was now doing this belated job of announcing to the Copernican revolution that the sun is actually moving, all would be happier. In this case it was late sixties last century when school was left in disrespect of the teacher's solutions to the tides and planetary motion.
Anyway, one student is now one person apparently on his own with an acute awareness of high scholarship choosing to almost inexplicably retard itself back at the fixed sun level. The first concern is the falling apples handicap that gets forced down throats back at junior school.
[email protected]
Beyond the life of Sir Isaac Newton and if the world has a modicum of affection for itself, its choice other than getting on top Sir Isaac's law of gravity is none. It's a lie and, by now, an institutionalised one.
Just as the Copernican revolution depended on individuals from outside regular scholarship not accepting what didn't make sense to them, the world depends again on such individuals.
During these centuries beyond the life of Sir Isaac Newton and if the world has a modicum of affection for itself, its choice other than correcting the parlaying of educational mistakes is none.
[email protected]
By the end of this webpage, professors should see that they are in sound positions to change the world for the better. There is an unfortunate institutionalized lie doing the rounds of junior classrooms. Apples don't attract planets. The charade of Newtonian isn't all that hard to see through. Amongst other things, what the travesty is secluding is an understanding of the high and low tides at the centre of the earth.
At this later hour, if the world has a modicum of affection for itself, the choice other than correcting Sir Isaac's mistakes is none.
[email protected]
At this later hour, if the world has a modicum of affection for itself, the choice other than correcting Sir Isaac's mistakes is none.
[email protected]
By the end of this junior school webpage, professors of good conscience should see that they are in sound positions to change the world for the better. Plus anyone with a passing background in mathematics or science will be able to see that Sir Isaac Newton has left the world carrying a fundamental mistake. An apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls. Amongst other things, what Sir Isaac's mistake(s) have hidden are rotations of planetary gravity fields. Those rotations are the clue to why Venus turns backwards as the earth moves forward, to why there is 24 hours in an earth day.
[email protected]
[email protected]
As unpalatable as it might originally seem to lovers of the century old Einstein story, Albert's theories carry the misconceptions of Aristotle. Or, beyond bureaucracy, if 'inertial' mass and 'gravitational' mass are both simply 'mass', what would either of Einstein's theories amount to..........
The need for the rewrite should become apparent to an academic quite quickly. Sir Isaac Newton's concept of two way gravity is flawed, beyond his second law, his first law does not explain anything, a definition of weight is absent from that second law and his third law is not a law of motion. It is the force law. Believe it or not kids, smelling the rat within Sir Isaac's laws is currently where the grand evolution of life on earth is at.
As unpalatable as it might originally seem to lovers of the century old Einstein story, Albert's theories carry the misconceptions of Aristotle. The vessel carrying Aristotle's misconceptions through to Einstein is or would be a subconscious academic belief that the equals sign of scholarship is the almighty of the universe. Mainly if 'inertial' mass and 'gravitational' mass are both simply 'mass', what would either of Einstein's theories amount to except a mess on earth..........
Where the current junior school / apple folklore moon 'pulls' ocean misinterpretation resides........
From one of Sir Isaac Newton's books, a mutual gravitation declaration in terms of what we must do. Pretty colours have been added to Sir Isaac's written command. For school teachers the highlighted vermillion part is important. Our sea does not gravitate towards the moon in the slightest....
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth, gravitate toward the earth; and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain; that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates toward the earth; that on the other hand our sea gravitates toward the moon; and all the planets mutually one toward another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow, that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation.
from Sir Isaac Newton's Principia.
Worth noting = Sir Isaac's command of future 'gravity' scholarship begins in hope of proof.
They severally contain = addition. Not the product of quantities that appears in the actual law.
Conversely, the moon gravitating towards the earth according to the quantity of its matter = Sir Isaac's contradiction of the moon gravitates towards the earth in accordance with the product of earth and moon quantities (the M x m of his actual law). As well as the contradiction, these highlighted words are an indication of Sir Isaac seeing the 'force' of the gravity of the earth originally as a second law force. In this case the effect of the earth's force of gravity as a second law force being the equivalent of the moon's mass multiplied by its rate of acceleration towards the earth. As today's mathematical physicists do, his mind casually slips between seeing gravitation as a force and gravitation as an acceleration.
Our sea (under the moon) only gravitates towards the earth. The interruption caused by the moon's inverse square law to the earth's inverse square law = this gravitation is less. A lesser weighting/gravitating in one direction does not = a weighting/gravitating in an opposite direction.
Endowed with = what covers over Sir Isaac's lack of consideration about the arithmetical impact throughout the universe of oppositely directed inverse square laws.
From one of Sir Isaac Newton's books, a mutual gravitation declaration in terms of what we must do. Pretty colours have been added to Sir Isaac's written command. For school teachers the highlighted vermillion part is important. Our sea does not gravitate towards the moon in the slightest....
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth, gravitate toward the earth; and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain; that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates toward the earth; that on the other hand our sea gravitates toward the moon; and all the planets mutually one toward another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow, that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation.
from Sir Isaac Newton's Principia.
Worth noting = Sir Isaac's command of future 'gravity' scholarship begins in hope of proof.
They severally contain = addition. Not the product of quantities that appears in the actual law.
Conversely, the moon gravitating towards the earth according to the quantity of its matter = Sir Isaac's contradiction of the moon gravitates towards the earth in accordance with the product of earth and moon quantities (the M x m of his actual law). As well as the contradiction, these highlighted words are an indication of Sir Isaac seeing the 'force' of the gravity of the earth originally as a second law force. In this case the effect of the earth's force of gravity as a second law force being the equivalent of the moon's mass multiplied by its rate of acceleration towards the earth. As today's mathematical physicists do, his mind casually slips between seeing gravitation as a force and gravitation as an acceleration.
Our sea (under the moon) only gravitates towards the earth. The interruption caused by the moon's inverse square law to the earth's inverse square law = this gravitation is less. A lesser weighting/gravitating in one direction does not = a weighting/gravitating in an opposite direction.
Endowed with = what covers over Sir Isaac's lack of consideration about the arithmetical impact throughout the universe of oppositely directed inverse square laws.
Sir Isaac's ignorance about the motion of a 'gravity' field means he was not a calculator of the motions' of heavenly bodies. Also calculating the paths of celestial bodies is cartography. Within that cartography, celestial bodies cannot physically go up and down at the same time. This statement was made by Sir Isaac in a different age. The modern starting point for calculating the goodness of people is teachers not going into raptures about his apple story.
What follows should be as big if not bigger than the Copernican revolution. The Einstein's of the world have gone to the wrong ballgame. By now they are the equivalent of scholastic regimes believing the earth is fixed in the centre of the universe in the pre Copernican era. Worse, if you are one, you do the world more harm than good with your black holes and big bangs.
By the end of this webpage professors and teachers alike should see that they are in sound positions to change the world for the better.
Amongst other things, almost without doubt why Venus turns backwards as the earth moves forward has been worked out. First Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity and his first law of motion have to put in their places. Then a little simple arithmetic and an application of Newton's second and third laws to the centre of the earth. That's followed by additions of the relative motions of the planets to the motion of the sun to the actual motion of the sun. After that the link between day lengths and gravity field turn rates starts to fall into place. The finishing touches are there to be done by others.
Without doubt what follows is as big if not bigger than the Copernican revolution. Doing more harm to the world than good with their unsound ideas about the universe, the Einstein's of the world have gone to the wrong ballgame.
[email protected]7
Amongst other things, almost without doubt why Venus turns backwards as the earth moves forward has been worked out. First Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity and his first law of motion have to put in their places. Then a little simple arithmetic and an application of Newton's second and third laws to the centre of the earth. That's followed by additions of the relative motions of the planets to the motion of the sun to the actual motion of the sun. After that the link between day lengths and gravity field turn rates starts to fall into place. The finishing touches are there to be done by others.
Without doubt what follows is as big if not bigger than the Copernican revolution. Doing more harm to the world than good with their unsound ideas about the universe, the Einstein's of the world have gone to the wrong ballgame.
[email protected]7
The school books have gravity wrong. An apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls. This webpage is both correction and basis for educationalist to make appropriate future curricula decisions from.
Briefly. Within his planetary motion reasoning, four centuries ago Galileo incorporated the impossibility of the planets ascending as they descend towards the sun. Following on from cavemen, a century later Sir Isaac Newton approached the tides with a failure to do the arithmetic of oppositely directed inverse square laws. These problems culminated in a law of mutual gravitation of the universe. Structurally flawed and based on Sir Isaac's not done arithmetic, this law was accepted by the scholarship of the day and, somewhat obviously, has persisted through until the present as a mechanical explainer of the universe.
Following on. Unusual as it is, when a modern lower school student sees that successive generations of professors have been hypnotized by Sir Isaac Newton during their growing up, it is the job of the student to give a gentle prod.
Briefly. Within his planetary motion reasoning, four centuries ago Galileo incorporated the impossibility of the planets ascending as they descend towards the sun. Following on from cavemen, a century later Sir Isaac Newton approached the tides with a failure to do the arithmetic of oppositely directed inverse square laws. These problems culminated in a law of mutual gravitation of the universe. Structurally flawed and based on Sir Isaac's not done arithmetic, this law was accepted by the scholarship of the day and, somewhat obviously, has persisted through until the present as a mechanical explainer of the universe.
Following on. Unusual as it is, when a modern lower school student sees that successive generations of professors have been hypnotized by Sir Isaac Newton during their growing up, it is the job of the student to give a gentle prod.
If the speed and direction of the sun's inverse square law are presumed to be uniform during the course of a world year, the sun's axis along the distance of that world year can be viewed as an absolute frame of reference. That is mathematical physicists can or could move on from the blatant academic lie of calling fictitiously fixed point frames of reference quasi absolute point frames of reference.
The critical post Copernican conundrum that arises is the one of how and why the moon accelerates and decelerates in accordance with both the sun and earth inverse square laws.
The critical post Copernican conundrum that arises is the one of how and why the moon accelerates and decelerates in accordance with both the sun and earth inverse square laws.
That's the reticent image of someone who left classrooms not under the spell of Sir Isaac Newton. Late sixties last century was the era. Today's image appears at the end. The only reason any image appears is a simple everyday face should help any woken up professors guide future classrooms to more reasoned understandings of the tides and planetary motion.
[email protected]
[email protected]
That's the reticent image of someone who left classrooms flabbergasted by Sir Isaac Newton's standard of physics. Late sixties last century was the era. Today's image appears at the end and the only reason any image appears is to help professors properly align with, as it is, the motion of the sun and the centre of the earth.
Unequivocally the answer to a planetary suspension above a star is planets perpetually falling towards a faster motion. Not planets falling from a Galilean motion towards the absence of motion. The way educationalist do not highlight the post Copernican discovery of the superior motion of the sun relative to the planets is a direct symptom of the malaise Sir Isaac's apple story causes. The completed answer to the tides is equalization of downward force across the centre of the planet. Not the stupid Newtonian stuff that is currently taught. The first part of the answer to the tides intellectually comes out through realization that an apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls.
[email protected]
Unequivocally the answer to a planetary suspension above a star is planets perpetually falling towards a faster motion. Not planets falling from a Galilean motion towards the absence of motion. The way educationalist do not highlight the post Copernican discovery of the superior motion of the sun relative to the planets is a direct symptom of the malaise Sir Isaac's apple story causes. The completed answer to the tides is equalization of downward force across the centre of the planet. Not the stupid Newtonian stuff that is currently taught. The first part of the answer to the tides intellectually comes out through realization that an apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls.
[email protected]
The school books have gravity wrong. An apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls. This webpage is both correction and basis for educationalist to make appropriate future curricula decisions from.
Briefly. Within his planetary motion reasoning, four centuries ago Galileo incorporated the impossibility of the planets ascending as they descend towards the sun. Following on from cavemen, a century later Sir Isaac Newton approached the tides with a failure to do the arithmetic of oppositely directed inverse square laws. These problems culminated in a law of mutual gravitation of the universe. Structurally flawed and based on Sir Isaac's not done arithmetic, this law was accepted by the scholarship of the day. Persisting to the present, very much it needs modern address. In civilized societies, teaching mistakes is a questionable act.
Over the past few centuries the righteousness of those mentioned names has become part of what it feels like for a professor to wake up in the morning. It is thus understood that this task of school book rectification is not straight forward case of right and wrong. For professors and politicians to admit that an apple does not draw the earth as it falls, first they have to be sure the world's best interest would be served. Afterall, elites are the cornerstone of civilization.
Briefly. Within his planetary motion reasoning, four centuries ago Galileo incorporated the impossibility of the planets ascending as they descend towards the sun. Following on from cavemen, a century later Sir Isaac Newton approached the tides with a failure to do the arithmetic of oppositely directed inverse square laws. These problems culminated in a law of mutual gravitation of the universe. Structurally flawed and based on Sir Isaac's not done arithmetic, this law was accepted by the scholarship of the day. Persisting to the present, very much it needs modern address. In civilized societies, teaching mistakes is a questionable act.
Over the past few centuries the righteousness of those mentioned names has become part of what it feels like for a professor to wake up in the morning. It is thus understood that this task of school book rectification is not straight forward case of right and wrong. For professors and politicians to admit that an apple does not draw the earth as it falls, first they have to be sure the world's best interest would be served. Afterall, elites are the cornerstone of civilization.
That's the reticent image of someone who left classrooms flabbergasted by Sir Isaac Newton's standard of physics. Late sixties last century was the era. Today's image appears at the end and the only reason any image appears is as an honest communicative tool in prospect.
The right answers to planetary motion and the tides came along a decade and more after school. Unequivocally the answer to planetary suspension is planets perpetually falling towards a faster moving star. Not planets falling from their own motions towards a fixed in space star. The completed right answer to the tides is where an enchanter would be of enormous value to life on earth. It is a thing of true physical beauty. Regardless, if it gets within range of a professor of conscience, they should cotton onto its value to the world at large. The equalization of downward force across the centre of the planet is the last part of the answer to the tides as we observe them up here on the surface. From orthodox secondary school thinking, that's one person's analysis. If it stands up, it should be the biggest non violent news the world has experienced for a little bit. The first part of the answer to the tides comes out through realization that an apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls.
[email protected]
The right answers to planetary motion and the tides came along a decade and more after school. Unequivocally the answer to planetary suspension is planets perpetually falling towards a faster moving star. Not planets falling from their own motions towards a fixed in space star. The completed right answer to the tides is where an enchanter would be of enormous value to life on earth. It is a thing of true physical beauty. Regardless, if it gets within range of a professor of conscience, they should cotton onto its value to the world at large. The equalization of downward force across the centre of the planet is the last part of the answer to the tides as we observe them up here on the surface. From orthodox secondary school thinking, that's one person's analysis. If it stands up, it should be the biggest non violent news the world has experienced for a little bit. The first part of the answer to the tides comes out through realization that an apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls.
[email protected]
The school books have gravity wrong. An apple does not 'draw' the earth as it falls. This webpage is both correction and basis for educationalist to make appropriate future curricula decisions from.
Briefly. Within his planetary motion reasoning, four centuries ago Galileo incorporated the impossibility of the planets ascending as they descend towards the sun. Following on from cavemen, a century later Sir Isaac Newton failed to do the arithmetic of oppositely directed inverse square laws. These problems culminated in a law of mutual gravitation of the universe. Structurally flawed and based on Sir Isaac's not done arithmetic, this law was accepted by the scholarship of the day and persists to the present. Very much it needs a modern address.
Along with more recent deeds, such as man standing on the moon and an atom being split, over the past few centuries those mentioned names have become god like in academic circles. It is thus understood that this task of school book rectification is not straight forward case of right and wrong. Least of all themselves, no one is likely to consider that those trading as mathematical physicists or physicists are basing their celestial craft on mistakes of entrenched academic deity.
On top of that, in a situation like this, the world would prefer to be dynamically charmed by someone with genius attributes. Not told by a shy lesser behind a keyboard that it is stupid to be holding a name like Albert Einstein in the regard that it does.
Briefly. Within his planetary motion reasoning, four centuries ago Galileo incorporated the impossibility of the planets ascending as they descend towards the sun. Following on from cavemen, a century later Sir Isaac Newton failed to do the arithmetic of oppositely directed inverse square laws. These problems culminated in a law of mutual gravitation of the universe. Structurally flawed and based on Sir Isaac's not done arithmetic, this law was accepted by the scholarship of the day and persists to the present. Very much it needs a modern address.
Along with more recent deeds, such as man standing on the moon and an atom being split, over the past few centuries those mentioned names have become god like in academic circles. It is thus understood that this task of school book rectification is not straight forward case of right and wrong. Least of all themselves, no one is likely to consider that those trading as mathematical physicists or physicists are basing their celestial craft on mistakes of entrenched academic deity.
On top of that, in a situation like this, the world would prefer to be dynamically charmed by someone with genius attributes. Not told by a shy lesser behind a keyboard that it is stupid to be holding a name like Albert Einstein in the regard that it does.
That's the reticent image of someone who left classrooms flabbergasted by Sir Isaac Newton's standard of physics. Late sixties last century was the era. Today's image appears at the end and the only reason any image appears is as an honest communicative tool in prospect.
The right answers to planetary motion and the tides came along in 1987. Unequivocally the answer to planetary suspension is planets perpetually falling towards a faster moving star. Not planets falling from their own motions towards a fixed in space star. The reason of the high tide under the moon is moon -sun induced reduction in earth inverse square law magnitude. This is vastly different from the moon directly pulling an ocean under the moon. The completed answer to the tides is simply Sir Isaac's equal and opposite force axiom at work. Equalization of downward force across the centre of the earth perfectly explains like tides observed up here on the surface of the planet. If that completed answer stands, it is the biggest of scholastic news. Gives the world a fresh view of itself.
As it is, though, there is probable bigger scholastic news at hand. In all likelihood an interplanetary relationship between planetary gravity field turn rates and their day lengths exists. That's ventured into in 'thought nourishment one' and doesn't mean much until it is understood that an apple does not draw the earth as it falls.
Personally do not like the word 'gravity' or the term 'gravity field' all that much. Prefer inverse square law. It's more to the point of an observed descent. For the sake of communication and as everyone has the word 'gravity' or the term 'gravity field' nearby when they see something fall, those expressions are often maintained. The overall point is public servants have much, much work to do to get lower school education up to speed about an apple not 'drawing' the earth as it falls. A falsity stifling the thought patterns of the young over and over again is unlikely to be the answer to life on earth.
[email protected]
The right answers to planetary motion and the tides came along in 1987. Unequivocally the answer to planetary suspension is planets perpetually falling towards a faster moving star. Not planets falling from their own motions towards a fixed in space star. The reason of the high tide under the moon is moon -sun induced reduction in earth inverse square law magnitude. This is vastly different from the moon directly pulling an ocean under the moon. The completed answer to the tides is simply Sir Isaac's equal and opposite force axiom at work. Equalization of downward force across the centre of the earth perfectly explains like tides observed up here on the surface of the planet. If that completed answer stands, it is the biggest of scholastic news. Gives the world a fresh view of itself.
As it is, though, there is probable bigger scholastic news at hand. In all likelihood an interplanetary relationship between planetary gravity field turn rates and their day lengths exists. That's ventured into in 'thought nourishment one' and doesn't mean much until it is understood that an apple does not draw the earth as it falls.
Personally do not like the word 'gravity' or the term 'gravity field' all that much. Prefer inverse square law. It's more to the point of an observed descent. For the sake of communication and as everyone has the word 'gravity' or the term 'gravity field' nearby when they see something fall, those expressions are often maintained. The overall point is public servants have much, much work to do to get lower school education up to speed about an apple not 'drawing' the earth as it falls. A falsity stifling the thought patterns of the young over and over again is unlikely to be the answer to life on earth.
[email protected]
For all its wonder of moving scholarship on from an earth fixed in the centre of the universe the Copernican revolution is based on impossibilities of physics. Anyone seeing as much back at school is a chance to wake the world up later in life. With the assistance of a digital age and a finding of a professor of conscience, the chances should really be pretty good of ending the developed world's current mathematical slumber. Presumably down deep no one would want the world living in a misunderstanding of the universe.
The scholastic prejudice in favour of Sir Isaac's apple story is accepted wholeheartedly by government. So it may be here until the end. Alternatively, if the penny does drop about how wrong we are to be educationally proclaiming the story as the doorway into the universe, here's hoping for a better world. The facts are we are teaching both the tides and planetary motion senselessly. The problem is Sir Isaac Newton's law of the mutual gravitation of the universe.
[email protected]
The scholastic prejudice in favour of Sir Isaac's apple story is accepted wholeheartedly by government. So it may be here until the end. Alternatively, if the penny does drop about how wrong we are to be educationally proclaiming the story as the doorway into the universe, here's hoping for a better world. The facts are we are teaching both the tides and planetary motion senselessly. The problem is Sir Isaac Newton's law of the mutual gravitation of the universe.
[email protected]
The upholders of Sir Isaac Newton's apple story need a wake up call. His law of gravity is wrong. The spirit of the world in a bigger mess than necessary. Highlighting the discovery of the motion of the sun around the galaxy is yet to be done. The newly affirmed rotation rates of the planets are not subject to proper scholastic scrutiny.
Hello.
Knowing that Einstein/mathematical physics is out of tune with reality does not require great intelligence. All that is needed is a junior school ability to see the moon could not be 'pulling' water away from itself. And that a planet going up and down at the same time could not be the explanation of an orbit of the sun.
The long ago flabbergasted moment after the teacher offered these gravity defying explanations is well remembered. A part from what the right answers to the tides and planetary motion might be, the mystery was how those who had gone onto to be geniuses and split the atom were failing to differentiate between the physical requirements of up and down motions.
As much as no one is likely to take much original notice of this, it's worth the effort of presenting the fact that, for centuries, post Newton gravity geniuses have played scant regard to the fact that descent is an acceleration and ascent requires original motive force. The presentation leads to the high probability of the 24 hours in an earth day being a factor of the 24 hours in a Mars day,
Knowing that Einstein/mathematical physics is out of tune with reality does not require great intelligence. All that is needed is a junior school ability to see the moon could not be 'pulling' water away from itself. And that a planet going up and down at the same time could not be the explanation of an orbit of the sun.
The long ago flabbergasted moment after the teacher offered these gravity defying explanations is well remembered. A part from what the right answers to the tides and planetary motion might be, the mystery was how those who had gone onto to be geniuses and split the atom were failing to differentiate between the physical requirements of up and down motions.
As much as no one is likely to take much original notice of this, it's worth the effort of presenting the fact that, for centuries, post Newton gravity geniuses have played scant regard to the fact that descent is an acceleration and ascent requires original motive force. The presentation leads to the high probability of the 24 hours in an earth day being a factor of the 24 hours in a Mars day,
University professors are yet to wake up to Sir Isaac's now institutionalized oversight about the universe.
Tuning into reality is going to be very difficult while every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe is being taught to successive generations.
Tuning into reality is going to be very difficult while every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe is being taught to successive generations.
What the troubles were that led to Albert trying to bludgeon this marriage theory into existence may or may not have been of Albert's making. But the marriage fell apart shortly afterwards. Evidently there had been a professional tension between the couple.
A. You will make sure:
1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.
B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:
1. my sitting at home with you;
2. my going out or travelling with you.
C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:
1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.
D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behaviour.
1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.
B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:
1. my sitting at home with you;
2. my going out or travelling with you.
C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:
1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.
D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behaviour.
Reasonably obviously there is pass mark hypnotism at play within what professors accept as explanations of planetary motion and the tides during their own lower education. At the heart of the problem is Sir Isaac Newton proffering these impossibilities.
For humanity to survive, Sir Isaac's impossibilities have to be subjected to a junior classroom address. The saving grace hopefully will be an understanding of the how and why of the various rotation rates of the planets of the solar system. For some time that Venus has been suspected to be in some sort of gravity lock with the earth. There is three Venus days to every two earth years. That lock most plausibly extends throughout the rest of the solar system.
Reasonably obviously there is pass mark hypnotism at play within what professors accept as explanations of planetary motion and the tides during their own lower education. At the heart of the problem is Sir Isaac Newton proffering these impossibilities.
For humanity to survive, Sir Isaac's impossibilities have to be subjected to a junior classroom address. The saving grace hopefully will be an understanding of the how and why of the various rotation rates of the planets of the solar system. For some time that Venus has been suspected to be in some sort of gravity lock with the earth. There is three Venus days to every two earth years. That lock most plausibly extends throughout the rest of the solar system.
Beyond a father not realizing that growing up had delivered a suicidal frame of mind, no one was to blame. Good kid, but.
Socrates said something like democracy is no good without people having access to the best available knowledge. If professors believe in the survival of humanity, they will naturally get education up to speed about the motion of the sun. Nice beer. Just so sad that my son took his own life before I had this equal and opposite tide message to world.
If professors can one day understand that there is pass mark hypnotism at play within what they have accepted during their own lower education, through reviewing the why and the how of the tides and planetary motion, the world can only get a better sense of itself.
G.K.
The weakness in higher education and indeed the world is Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity. No one on the planet can ever know particles light years apart are attracting each other. The secluded issues are..........
1/ The key to planetary motion is all descents are motions relative to their causes (inverse square laws are moving).
2/ The key to the tides is equal and opposite arithmetic (inverse square laws terminate where a direction of fall reverses).
These keys stem from known knowledge....................
1/ The earth and stars are moving.
2/ Moonshots leave the earth's inverse square law and enter the moon's inverse square law.
They do not rely on supposition about the whole universe. These are the current impossibilities about each that I was taught at school.
1/ The key to planetary motion is all descents are motions relative to their causes (inverse square laws are moving).
2/ The key to the tides is equal and opposite arithmetic (inverse square laws terminate where a direction of fall reverses).
These keys stem from known knowledge....................
1/ The earth and stars are moving.
2/ Moonshots leave the earth's inverse square law and enter the moon's inverse square law.
They do not rely on supposition about the whole universe. These are the current impossibilities about each that I was taught at school.
The weakness in higher education and indeed the world is Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity. Not the parts that say things fall or that there is a inverse square law of fall rate diminish as distance from a body like the earth increases. Those parts are observable. Those parts are also a far cry from every particle in the universe being known to attract every other particle in the universe. No one on the planet can ever know particles light years apart are attracting each other.
All that is here nor there until its realized such supposition is keeping scholarship separate from understanding the keys to the tides and planetary motion. Which are
1/ The key to planetary motion is all descents are relative motions (inverse square laws are moving).
2/ The key to the tides is equal and opposite arithmetic (inverse square laws terminate where a direction of fall reverses).
These keys stem from
1/ Knowledge that the earth and stars are moving.
2/ Knowledge that moonshots leave the earth's inverse square law and enter the moon's inverse square law.
They do not rely on supposition about the whole universe and these are the current impossibilities about each that I was taught at school.
All that is here nor there until its realized such supposition is keeping scholarship separate from understanding the keys to the tides and planetary motion. Which are
1/ The key to planetary motion is all descents are relative motions (inverse square laws are moving).
2/ The key to the tides is equal and opposite arithmetic (inverse square laws terminate where a direction of fall reverses).
These keys stem from
1/ Knowledge that the earth and stars are moving.
2/ Knowledge that moonshots leave the earth's inverse square law and enter the moon's inverse square law.
They do not rely on supposition about the whole universe and these are the current impossibilities about each that I was taught at school.
The weakness in higher education and indeed the world is Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity.
1/ The key to planetary motion is all descents are relative motions (inverse square laws are moving).
2/ The key to the tides is equal and opposite arithmetic (inverse square laws terminate where a direction of fall reverses).
These keys stem from
1/ Knowledge that the earth and stars are moving.
2/ Knowledge that moonshots leave the earth's inverse square law and enter the moon's inverse square law.
They do not rely on supposition about every particle in the uni and these are the current impossibilities about each that I was taught at school.
1/ The key to planetary motion is all descents are relative motions (inverse square laws are moving).
2/ The key to the tides is equal and opposite arithmetic (inverse square laws terminate where a direction of fall reverses).
These keys stem from
1/ Knowledge that the earth and stars are moving.
2/ Knowledge that moonshots leave the earth's inverse square law and enter the moon's inverse square law.
They do not rely on supposition about every particle in the uni and these are the current impossibilities about each that I was taught at school.
The bizarre idea of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe needs dutiful removal from lower school curricula. Sir Isaac Newton has hoodwinked the world.
G.K.
G.K.
The father of modern science, Galileo, was not the sort of bloke who would wish for his fixed sun mistake to still be running through lower school curricula.
The first step toward adding motions and rotations to gravity fields is a review of the virtue of teaching an apple drawing the earth as it falls.
In that education doesn't teach the movement or the rotations of gravity fields, there is an unhealthy institutionalized ignorance about each permeating the world.
"Every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe". Only someone who has seen the teacher was parlaying impossible tidal and planetary motion solutions at the lower education level could end up originally knowing that.
Not unlike the fixed earth mistake of yesterday year, anyone who passes through lower school to a university degree accepting that the planets could orbit a motionless sun is involved in Galileo's mistake.
Simple as seeing planets could not orbit a motionless sun happens to be, only someone who saw such problems with Newtonian physics at the lower education level can end up saying to the world, "every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe".
Secondary school knowledge about higher scholarship using chicanery to say planets are going up and down at the same time or the moon is able to pull water away from itself is not an immediate doorway through to the right answers. It's just an abiding curiosity about what the right answers would be.
With thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not centrifugal force or the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth.
Whether or not academics are being unhelpfully indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's impossibilities, there are more obvious explanations about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
The review necessarily becomes an audit of junior school physics. Mutual gravitation and inertial mass get left behind as B.C. inspired myths. With a bit of luck this relatively heavy audit of junior school physics will be balanced by an adding of a rotation cause column to the planetary day length table. For a while now astronomers have been baffled by an apparent synchronization between the rate of the earth's progress around the sun and the Venus day length. Venus turns backwards on its axis three times during the course of two earth years.
Secondary school knowledge about higher scholarship using chicanery to say planets are going up and down at the same time or the moon is able to pull water away from itself is not an immediate doorway through to the right answers. It's just an abiding curiosity about what the right answers would be.
With thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not centrifugal force or the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. Launched satellites slowly fall towards the faster moving axii of the earth's inverse square law. When an axis is fallen through, the descent becomes an ascent from the other side of the axis. That ascent is the beginning of an orbit. The tides are a consequence of terminal inverse square law points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being unhelpfully indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's impossibilities, there are these more obvious explanations about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
The review necessarily becomes an audit of junior school physics. Mutual gravitation and inertial mass get left behind as B.C. inspired myths. With a bit of luck this relatively heavy audit of junior school physics will be balanced by an adding of a rotation cause column to the planetary day length table. For a while now astronomers have been baffled by an apparent synchronization between the rate of the earth's progress around the sun and the Venus day length. Venus turns backwards on its axis three times during the course of two earth years.
Personally leaving a secondary school knowing scholarship uses chicanery to say planets are going up and down at the same time or the moon is able to pull water away from itself is not an immediate doorway through to the right answers. It's just an abiding curiosity about what the right answers would be.
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not centrifugal force or the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. The original error (of professor Dave/Newton/Galileo) is a static sun. The planets are slowly falling towards a faster moving star. That relatively slow descent is a set of inverting elongated curves around that faster moving sun. And the tides, they are a consequence of zero 'gravity' points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, there is this alternative explanation about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
The review works out to be an audit of Newtonian physics. Half of Sir Isaac's laws are left as mythical. Taking over from the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe, mathematical physics itself is seen as a pseudoscience working against the best interests of children.
yours sincerely
apples don't draw planets as they fall
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not centrifugal force or the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. The original error (of professor Dave/Newton/Galileo) is a static sun. The planets are slowly falling towards a faster moving star. That relatively slow descent is a set of inverting elongated curves around that faster moving sun. And the tides, they are a consequence of zero 'gravity' points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, there is this alternative explanation about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
The review works out to be an audit of Newtonian physics. Half of Sir Isaac's laws are left as mythical. Taking over from the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe, mathematical physics itself is seen as a pseudoscience working against the best interests of children.
yours sincerely
apples don't draw planets as they fall
Personally leaving a secondary school knowing scholarship uses chicanery to say planets are going up and down at the same time or the moon is able to pull water away from itself is not an immediate doorway through to the right answers. It's just an abiding curiosity about what the right answers would be.
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. It's the motion of the earth's inverse square law that does. And the tides, they are a consequence of zero 'gravity' points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, there is this alternative explanation about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
The review works out to be an audit of Newtonian physics. Half of his laws are thrown out. Taking over from the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe, mathematical physics is seen as an egotistical pseudoscience working against humanity. For the world to live to its beauty, that craft of endeavour is not in the picture. It's what carrying Sir Isaac Newton's impossibilities.
yours sincerely
apples don't draw planets as they fall
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. It's the motion of the earth's inverse square law that does. And the tides, they are a consequence of zero 'gravity' points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, there is this alternative explanation about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
The review works out to be an audit of Newtonian physics. Half of his laws are thrown out. Taking over from the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe, mathematical physics is seen as an egotistical pseudoscience working against humanity. For the world to live to its beauty, that craft of endeavour is not in the picture. It's what carrying Sir Isaac Newton's impossibilities.
yours sincerely
apples don't draw planets as they fall
Leaving secondary school knowing scholarship uses chicanery to say planets are going up and down at the same time or the moon is able to pull water away from itself is not an immediate doorway through to the right answers. It's just an abiding curiosity about what the right answers would be.
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. It's the motion of the earth's inverse square law that does. And the tides, they are a consequence of zero 'gravity' points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, there is this alternative explanation about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
With this audit of Newtonian physics, half of his laws are thrown out. Mathematical physics itself done away with. Serving no humane purpose, it's the egotistical pseudo science that took over from the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe. Has to go.
yours sincerely
apples don't draw planets as they fall
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this message is a supply of needed basic common sense answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. It's the motion of the earth's inverse square law that does. And the tides, they are a consequence of zero 'gravity' points where directions of fall reverse. The relevant reversal points for earth tides being in between the earth and moon. And at the centre of the earth.
Whether or not academics are being indoctrinated over and over again by Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, there is this alternative explanation about the tides and planetary motion to open up for review.
With this audit of Newtonian physics, half of his laws are thrown out. Mathematical physics itself done away with. Serving no humane purpose, it's the egotistical pseudo science that took over from the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe. Has to go.
yours sincerely
apples don't draw planets as they fall
This will probably catch everyone off guard. Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity is a planet destroying indoctrination. Every particle in the universe has never and will never attract every other particle in the universe.
The world will never be any good until university professors wake up to the mess Sir Isaac's explanations has their heads in.....
The world will never be any good until university professors wake up to the mess Sir Isaac's explanations has their heads in.....
This will probably catch everyone off guard. Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity is plainly wrong. Through hifalutin explanations and vulnerable adolescents so trustingly believing knowledge that is transmitted to them without thinking for themselves, it's causing these obvious impossibilities to be indoctrinated into world consciousness over and over again. For the world to move on, it has to go. Schoolteachers have to wake up to the Newtonian celestial impossibilities they are parlaying.
Personally leaving secondary school knowing scholarship uses chicanery to say planets are going up and down at the same time or the moon is able to pull water away from itself is not an immediate doorway through to the right answers. It's just an abiding curiosity about what the right answers would be.
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this humble message to anyone interested in life on earth is a supply of basic right answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. It's the motion of the earth's inverse square law that does. And the tides, the mistake goes back to cavemen. Mathematically the moon's gravity doesn't extend to the earth. What the opposite direction of the moon's gravity mathematically does is cause an ocean under the moon to weigh less on earth. Leading to complete misunderstandings of the tides in full, the moon actually pulling an ocean towards the moon is a or the misconception of the ages.
yours sincerely
someone believing in the earth
With later day thanks to point of difference YouTube contributors, this humble message to anyone interested in life on earth is a supply of basic right answers to the phenomena of both the tides and planetary motion. With the YouTube above, it's not the roundness of the earth that supports a satellite above the earth. It's the motion of the earth's inverse square law that does. And the tides, the mistake goes back to cavemen. Mathematically the moon's gravity doesn't extend to the earth. What the opposite direction of the moon's gravity mathematically does is cause an ocean under the moon to weigh less on earth. Leading to complete misunderstandings of the tides in full, the moon actually pulling an ocean towards the moon is a or the misconception of the ages.
yours sincerely
someone believing in the earth
Australian politicians and academics have been uncontactable over a thirty year period about the tides of the earth and planetary motion being taught in error at the lower school level. Thus a letter to world. The tides are the equal and opposite forces of the earth. The planets are pendulums swinging across the speed of the sun. The whole world should know these things.
Along with pointing out that the concept is a hindrance to understanding the tides of the earth and the physics of planetary motion, this is just a demonstration that every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe. Post the demonstration Einstein's theories and mathematical physics fall where they do.
The background scholarship = Newtonian physics was encountered at a secondary school. Within Sir Isaac's law of gravity there was an arithmetical contradiction. Sir Isaac's first law of motion was a statement of fact. Not an explanatory law of motion. Something classically bizarre was going on with the use of ascent vectors to explain the tides and planetary motion.
Along with pointing out that the concept is a hindrance to understanding the tides of the earth and the physics of planetary motion, this is just a demonstration that every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe. Post the demonstration Einstein's theories and mathematical physics fall where they do.
The background scholarship = Newtonian physics was encountered at a secondary school. Within Sir Isaac's law of gravity there was an arithmetical contradiction. Sir Isaac's first law of motion was a statement of fact. Not an explanatory law of motion. Something classically bizarre was going on with the use of ascent vectors to explain the tides and planetary motion.
The author of this more obvious tidal explanation was never taught Einstein's theories and has never sort to understand the equations they are based upon. For the many who accept Einstein's work to be beyond doubt, if every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe is clearly shown to be defective, it directly follows that other gravity theories require their own review. Essentially, though, this is not a question mark about general relativity. It is a demonstration that every particle in the universe does not attract every other particle in the universe and that the concept has been a hindrance to understanding the tides. Post that demonstration, Einstein's theories and mathematical physics itself fall where they do.
The background to this more obvious tidal explanation = Newtonian physics was encountered at a secondary school. Classrooms were subsequently left in a dumbfounded state. Within Sir Isaac's law of gravity there was an arithmetical contradiction. Sir Isaac's first law of motion was a statement of fact. Not an explanatory law of motion. The Newtonian use of impossible vectors to explain the tides and planetary motion didn't improve in the clearer air outside the classroom.
If the rotation aspect of the table is on the right track, even the pope would probably prefer to work into it than do much else. It can only help life on earth move forward.
Below are the the initial diagrams that go with the table. If it is in the right area, the ellipses will change it all a bit. With the data coming in from modern telescopes, planetary alignment is real good fun. It's the doorway. If those working on a big bang and black holes slip over to planetary alignment, the future is going to be a little bit different.
Below are the the initial diagrams that go with the table. If it is in the right area, the ellipses will change it all a bit. With the data coming in from modern telescopes, planetary alignment is real good fun. It's the doorway. If those working on a big bang and black holes slip over to planetary alignment, the future is going to be a little bit different.
Hello. For junior scholarship and the good of the world in general, Newtonian physics has been rewritten. The tides are the equal and opposite forces of the earth. And the planets are swinging pendulums. The Copernican revolution made obvious mistakes. Fifty years ago a schoolkid was able to pick them up and then later see these right answers. Thanks to point of difference Youtube contributors.
Hello. Physics has been rewritten for junior scholarship. If you still believe every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe beyond this web page, all the best. Sir Isaac Newton has hoodwinked the world into this gross untruth.
The sad part of the chicanery is all the stuff mutual gravitation is hiding from world consciousness. The world at large could be a lot happier with the universe.
Whether or not an alert can be raised about the ill direction mathematical academics are sending world consciousness, who knows. But anyway physics has been rewritten. Might help.
Hello. I am some sort of freak. Went to school and left knowing Newtonian physics didn't make sense.
The high probability is the 24 hours in a day I base my lifestyle upon comes from the tides of Mars being in the earth's orbit of the sun. Consideration of a mechanic between gravity field rotation rates and day lengths needs to come should be where things are at.
Plus someone who has seen the simple mistake in Sir Isaac Newton's mutual gravitation formula needs to explain said mistake.
Also planetary motion around a star needs teaching through the motion of that star.
Most importantly oceanic tides need understanding through what's underneath our feet. That being the equal and opposite forces across the centre of the planet.
Intro
Somewhere in the universe, governments were getting schoolteachers to brainwash these celestial impossibilities into classrooms.
Earlier one man seemed to have hypnotized a whole planet with an apple story that didn't even make sense. The mystery was why. As it was, the earth planet had done a wonderful telescopic job of discerning the day lengths of all the planets of its solar system. But the simplicity of a relationship between gravity field rotation rates and day lengths was not yet on its scholastic radar. The question was would the brainwashing ever come to an end.