If one is interested in hearing all views, contrary or otherwise, then people need to feel comfortable in expressing their views without ridicule or personal judgements. Otherwise all we have is open house for political correctness and non-contrarian views. We make the society we deserve.
People feeling comfortable, expressing their views without ridicule (or without extremely blunt push-back) is a noble aim. And may work where consequences are minor, such as for branches of philosophy, metaphysics or religion. But in real-world high-consequence situations, such as destabilising the only climate we know of able to sustain life and produce our food, it is extremely problematic. Would you be happy with homeopaths having more control over your cancer treatment than your oncologist? Would you be happy if what passes for physics of flat-Earthers was used to design the next space probe? How about the perpetual motion believers designing the engines for the next aircraft you fly in? We're in the 21st Century precisely because we've built on knowledge, rather than keeping all the crazy unphysical hypotheses in the mix. Vale, phlogiston!
"We make the society we deserve" Is a very interesting comment in the context of us having voted a bunch of full-on science deniers into government at the last three elections. (and it's not as if they just dispute the hard, actually-worth-debating stuff, they dispute the century-old easy, utterly-verified-many-times-before-computers, obvious stuff too). It's what happens when the cranks are given a greater voice (and legitimacy) than our esteemed national and international scientific institutions.
You talk of changes to the obliquity over the last 2000 years, well, I'll attach a figure charting temperature trends for the past 65 million years (Ma).
Hi Moris,
I refer to the last 2000 years of the obliquity by reason that we have a clear rate of the the constant decrease of the obliquity over this period and that the rate of decrease is known to be increasing. My objective is to demonstrate the existence of spiral planetary motion and how it has always controlled the continuous change in our planets climate.
To move on from the point where we could clearly identify that Earth's Orbit is a spiral that is responsible for the precession of the equinoxes. So we understand that in the first place the Spiral mode of of Earth's orbit is a very important important factor in the motion of our planet. Without the spiral factor what would we have Circular orbits? I think not - perpetual motion.
So the Spiral nature of our orbit takes on a very important place in Astronomy
and planetary motion. Then why we ask did Newton ignore it in the first place?
There is a very good reason for his decision, because it was being brought to his notice By Dr. Hooke in their correspondence in 1689. But Newton dared not recognise what Dr Hooke had hinted at in his own work that he had asked Newton to review, Where they discussed Hooke's contention of all matter 'moving to a centre' Hook sketched for him the elliptic spiral as the form of motion.
This was in fact the biggest step forward for astronomy since Kepler described the elliptical form of orbital motion. But the Hooke was disappointed and returned to other many scientific studies and activities. So the advance stagnated.
Hooke and Newton fell out over this but Newton In his Principia 1786 (after Hookes death he gave mention of the spiral but reduced the study of planetary motion to the study of curvature which continues to this day.
The reason why not only Newton but all of the revered principle characters in astronomy, ever since, all continue to ignore the natural spiral motion of our planets. To follow the spiral is a great adventure into the history of our planet to see where it leads.
Kepler gave us the elliptical form of orbital motion. If it is wished, We can discuss the foregoing before we pass on to the spiral effect of Earth's second form of motion it's rotation. There are some questions perhaps, this is a very simplified explanation but it is all based on historical fact and the constants of precession published in the astronomical almanacs.
Cheers, Alan D.
As a general comment on such discussions, I feel in any scientific argument it's important to argue the facts based on the evidence rather than any of the qualifications or lack of qualification of either proponent. Anything else tends towards activism however well intentioned it may or may not be.
If one is interested in hearing all views, contrary or otherwise, then people need to feel comfortable in expressing their views without ridicule or personal judgements. Otherwise all we have is open house for political correctness and non-contrarian views. We make the society we deserve.
Best
JA
Problem is many who do claim to be Scientists do deliberately avoid all evidence that does not fit there theory.
As an example of this from Geology, most deliberately ignore the Carbon 14 dates of Coal Seams, as if that information was known their whole Theory of Evolution falls flat on its face.
Many other Examples of so called Science ignoring the evidence, in order to prop up their Theory can be given.
John,
This is a very bold and wide statement...
Please provide references and supprot those claims with relevant evidence, befor ewe go any further.
BTW, peer review is one of the tools scientist use to ensure the quality and accuracy of their work.
If idea does not fit the available data, it is rejected.. or put on the back burner for more data to be collected.
Those who ignore the above methodology can't be considered as scientists.
As an example of this from Geology, most deliberately ignore the Carbon 14 dates of Coal Seams, as if that information was known their whole Theory of Evolution falls flat on its face.
Hi John,
I've done a bit of digging () into your assertion, and have found some interesting articles.
It seems that one of the arguments creationists use to support their ideology surrounds the half-life of carbon-14. The hypothesis seems to be that the presence of c14 in fossil fuels, rock samples and fossils proves that current scientific methods for dating such materials is flawed, because this c14 could not be present in samples older than, say, 100,000 years. The half-life of c14 is around 5,730.
This is the view of Curt Sewell (2004) http://ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
One of his more creative conclusions is:
...the finding that measurable and reproducible amounts of 14C in fossil material such as coal and other materials previously thought to be very ancient is a powerful refutation of the geological timescale of millions of years. This should force a complete re-examination of the entire scientific system of dating...
I've been thinking more about these articles refuting the accepted methods for radiometric dating, and it seems that such literature is damaging, not only to the credibility of those who write them, but also potentially to those readers who may be swayed by the perceived or self-assumed status of the authors. If arguments for a different interpretation of theories are to be taken seriously, and be of service to their intended audience, they at least have to engage at something approaching an informed level.
In another thread Paul Davies was mentioned, and although some may question the direction his more philosophical musings take, there is no doubting the depth of his knowledge regarding current scientific practice and theory. On this basis alone his writing merits serious consideration.
Articles such as the ones I've seen this morning are, in my opinion, nothing but selective fluff, carrying no weight of rigour and showing no willingness to enter into informed debate on the issue. In fact fluff is the wrong word. These articles represent an approach to knowledge that is blinkered, biased and selective, masquerading as an approach informed by an exclusive connection to divine knowledge. This is dangerous and damaging to impressionable minds.
If an argument can be formed through an unbiased review of all the literature dealing with a particular topic, which might require taking the time to learn more about a topic in order to understand it more completely, then this is a good point to proceed from. I consider essential as well to hold an attitude of openness, to be prepared to be wrong. This is difficult, but knowing you have approached an issue as objectively as possible is itself a very satisfying outcome.
Anything less is a waste of time, and renders any argument formulated without a willingness to fully engage with the whole body of literature irrelevant at best, manipulative and exploitative in more extreme cases.
[QUOTE=bojan;1451487]There is NO natural or un-natural spiral motion of our planets...
Bojan
Sorry for delay in getting back on line.
That is a bold statement you made. How do you describe earth’s orbit if it not a spiral motion, you are virtually saying that it is performing a circle, a perpetual motion?
Only a spiral motion can produce the precession of the equinoxes not a circle. As you suggested, we started with the precession the equinoxes, rightly so.
Could you then explain to me (and others) exactly why and how spiral motion causes precession, maybe I am misunderstanding something.
I included link from wikipedia above to help you point out for us what you think is my problem.
Without reading up on this, I imagine the earth's orbit would trace a more or less level path around the sun. If I was to imagine this as a spiral I would have to first assume the solar system as a whole is moving through space in a direction perpendicular to the earth's orbit. This would then I suppose trace out a spiral.
If the movement of the solar system as a whole was not perpendicular to the orbit of the earth then the spiral would not be as I imagine a spiral to be - which is like a slinky.
I strongly suspect my conception of this is waaaay off. The answer might lie in topology, but it's hard for me to know because I'm not on top of () all the dimensions in the universe which would need to be taken into account for such a model to be formulated.
Without reading up on this, I imagine the earth's orbit would trace a more or less level path around the sun. If I was to imagine this as a spiral I would have to first assume the solar system as a whole is moving through space in a direction perpendicular to the earth's orbit. This would then I suppose trace out a spiral.
If the movement of the solar system as a whole was not perpendicular to the orbit of the earth then the spiral would not be as I imagine a spiral to be - which is like a slinky.
I strongly suspect my conception of this is waaaay off. The answer might lie in topology, but it's hard for me to know because I'm not on top of () all the dimensions in the universe which would need to be taken into account for such a model to be formulated.
Post
Last edited by Multiverse; 01-11-2019 at 07:22 AM.
In any case, I realise now I was hypothesising about how one may describe the earth's motion through an imaginary space ("the universe"), limited in the context of this hypothesis to 3 dimensions.
Alan D., could you please explain your theory of a "spiral orbital path of the earth around the sun", and some background as to how you arrived at this theory?
In any case, I realise now I was hypothesising about how one may describe the earth's motion through an imaginary space ("the universe"), limited in the context of this hypothesis to 3 dimensions.
Alan D., could you please explain your theory of a "spiral orbital path of the earth around the sun", and some background as to how you arrived at this theory?
No, it is inadequate. 'a repeating path' does not define the nature of it the orbital path. 'a continuous path' would be less ambiguous, a repeating path could be interpreted as an orbital circle.
We find the science is, as always, reluctant to call the orbit a circle, for good reason. but at the same time same time they cannot, dare not say what it really is, a spiral. And they have good reason for this reluctance. The history of the farce goes bach 360 years. The only people who wouid dare to recognise Spiral planetary motion are those who have nothing to lose recognising the truth of it.
The repercussions following recognition of this truth are enormous, affecting far more than astronomy alone. Enough said. The question has to be asked to every astronomer is, do they think the earth's orbit is continuous spiral, if not what do they think it is? A simple question but a leads an amazing story.
Could you then explain to me (and others) exactly why and how spiral motion causes precession, maybe I am misunderstanding something.
I included link from wikipedia above to help you point out for us what you think is my problem.
Sorry bojan .
for the delay I’ve been a little busy of late.
I did try to visit your wiki reference by copying and pasting the address but was unsuccessful
Yes of course, my explanation.
The precession of the equinoxes is the key to understanding the spiral mode of Earth’s orbit about the Sun. the Sun’s gravitation effect on the Earth is paramount as it is with whole solar system I think you will agree. It has a strong influence on both of Earth’s forms of motion. It’s rotation on its axis and it’s revolution about the Sun.
As a preliminary it will be useful to quote Isaac Newton on his observations and study of planetary motion; from the ‘Principia’ (1687) aided with the impressions that he received from Dr, Robert Hooke during their earlier correspondence during 1679 where Hooke asked him to review his work – ‘The Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations’.
Hooke’s observations which obviously influenced Newton was the movement of the spheres to the centre etc. I quote a short extract:
“First, That all Coelestial Bodies whatsoever, have an attraction or gravitating power towards their own Centers, whereby they attract not only their own parts, and keep them from flying from them, as we may observe the Earth to do, but that they do also attract all the other Coelestial Bodies that are within the sphere of their activity; and consequently that not only the Sun and Moon have an influence upon the body and motion of the Earth, and the Earth upon them, but that also , , , and by their attractive powers, have a considerable influence upon its motion as in the same manner the corresponding attractive power of the Earth hath a considerable influence upon every one of their motions also.
The second supposition is this, That all bodies whatsoever that are put into a direct and simple motion, will so continue to move forward in a streight line, till they are by some other effectual powers deflected and bent into a Motion, describing a Circle, Ellipsis, or some other more compounded Curve Line.” End of quote
In the Principia it is evident that Newton had absorbed much from their discussions , where Hooke had clearly advanced the new notion that planetary motion was an ellipsis or a curved line. Towards the end of their correspondence, as they were considering the movement of the spheres to the centre, Hooke produced a sketch. A beautiful elliptical spiral.
There is much more to be told that followed but Its getting late for me, so tomorrow we will look at what Newton said in his ‘Principia’ about the movement to a centre , 7 years after Hooke’s death; plenty of time to contemplate on the risk of declaring an orbit as a spiral motion.
I've dug up the following from The Cambridge Companion to Newton:
The spiral orbit with a center of force at its pole is a particularly simple direct problem whose solution is an inverse-cube force [see attachment 1, the first paragraph of which is from an earlier footnote, but still interesting]. In this way Newton could have discovered in a straightforward manner that for the inverse-cube force the orbit reaches the origin “by an infinite number of spiral revolutions,” as he described it in his 13 December 1679 letter to Hooke. It is noteworthy that in “De motu” Newton quoted this result in a scholium without giving a geometrical demonstration as he did with his other propositions, and later on in the Principia, he applied the 1/r3 force law rather than the physically more interesting 1/r2 case, to solve explicitly the inverse problem (see Theorem 41, Corollary 3, Book 1) [see attachment 2]. Although Newton could also have applied his curvature method to solve the case of an elliptic orbit, there is no direct evidence that he actually carried out such a calculation.
The missing ingredient for a complete solution of the orbital problem, which must include the temporal as well as the spatial dependence of the motion, was provided by the fundamental idea of Hooke to view orbital motion as compounded by a tangential inertial velocity and a change of velocity impressed by the central force. This idea can be expressed in simple mathematical form for forces that act
as periodic impulses for which the curvature method is not applicable, and it leads directly to the area law (see Principia, Proposition 1, Book 1). After the correspondence with Hooke, Newton evidently understood the equivalence of these two distinct physical approaches to orbital motion, but he never credited Hooke for his seminal contribution.
Brackenridge, J., & Nauenberg, M. (2002). Curvature in Newton's dynamics. In I. Cohen & G. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton(Cambridge Companions to Philosophy, pp. 85-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521651778.004
) into your assertion, and have found some interesting articles. 
