Rens Van Der Sluijs: Velikovskian Chaff and Wheat: Venus
Science progresses in a variety of ways.
One way that science progresses is through a careful evaluation of arguments advanced by earlier scholars in the field. For the sake of academic honesty, this has to be done in a completely dispassionate manner. The work of pioneers, Nobel-prize winners and other prestigious people cannot be judged by different standards than that of the least noticed postgraduate student.
The maverick Russian-American polymath, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979), deserves recognition for his pioneering statements about the role of electromagnetic activity in space and the importance of catastrophic events even in historically recent periods. Yet science has no place for worship and it is incumbent on modern researchers to scrupulously evaluate each of Velikovsky’s many claims in the light of current knowledge.
One of Velikovsky’s boldest ideas was that the planet Venus is a relative newcomer in the solar system: during the mid-2nd millennium BCE, it would have been erupted from the interior of the planet Jupiter and have inflicted damage to the earth’s atmosphere and biosphere with its conspicuous cometary tail before settling in its present orbit and shedding its appendage. How does this analysis fare when approached today with an open but a sternly critical mind? ...
First, Velikovsky’s citation of the Roman intellectual, Varro, to the effect that Venus “changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since,” presents a genuine puzzle to modern historians of the solar system. The citation itself is unambiguous and not suspicious, but it needs to be resolved exactly how and when Venus’ colour, appearance and movement were modified.
In addition, the so-called Venus Tablet of Ammiṣaduqa (7th century BCE?), which presents the oldest known set of Venus observations, remains a mystery. Specialists are urged to investigate whether the data given in the tablet could consistently describe not the present orbit of Venus, but any other course the planet might have followed.
Second, Velikovsky’s argument that Venus once sported a cometary tail stands up to close scrutiny and can be buttressed with a mass of additional evidence. In modern terms, a plausible explanation for the ancient testimony would be the assumption that Venus’ large magnetosphere had acquired a visible glow in historical times, at a time when the inner solar system was brimming with electrical activity.
Third, Velikovsky rightly drew attention to the voluminous body of mythical traditions concerning the birth of the morning star. The spectacular ascent to heaven of the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl, in Aztec mythology, is a textbook example for this motif.
It is interesting to note that no mainstream researchers support this position. Sagan actually ridiculed Velikovsky on Cosmos, as I recall from my ill-spent youth.
ReplyDelete@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteI read this article prior to your posting it and I wondered if you had read it and what your reaction would be.
Well, since you posted the article, you are aware of the author's take on Velikovsky.
Some good, some bad.
Rens Van Der Sluijs' major point is that Velikovsky's central theme of a "new" Venus is wrong.
Does this posting mean you agree with the author that Velikovsky was wrong regarding a "new" Venus?
And does this also possibly mean you will stop leading with your chin on this "gravitation is a myth" obsession of yours, that only serves to get you ridiculed and mocked at various websites?
I mean even Electric Universe supporters are left baffled by your comments.
OilIsMastery, you hurt your own credibility, and you allow vicious opponents to riduclue Plasma Universe theory, by allowing them to point at your comments as being representative of Plasma Universe theory.
Frankly, you also hurt the credibility of the Oil Is Mastery website.
Surely, that is not your intention.
That's just the same as saying that he should recant expanding earth theory because it hurts the credibility of his arguments for abiotic origins for oil.
ReplyDeleteI'm not clear on what OIM thinks about the validity of the equations for gravity themselves. They have clearly been able to provide detailed accuracy with regard to predicting the motions of objects within the solar system.
However, neither Einstein's account of gravity in the theory of general relativity, nor Newton's spooky action at a distance version of gravity could be viable explanations for the mechanism that imparts the appearance of gravitation upon entities. Non-euclidean space makes no sense because space is just our perception of the relation of entities to one another, on the one hand, and magic is magic on the other. The fact that the science community on general has accepted both on faith is a symptom of their lack of philosophical sophistication rather than proof that the theories are true.
@ Pleroma:
ReplyDeletePleroma states: "That's just the same as saying that he should recant expanding earth theory because it hurts the credibility of his arguments for abiotic origins for oil."
Absolutely not.
Frankly, it has more to do with persuasion and style.
It's about "coming into the room" and doing something to draw attention, but that is so socially unacceptable that whatever you say afterwards, no matter how sensible and logical won't be taken seriously because of what you did upon coming into the room.
It's about realizing there are more persuasive tactics and less persuasive tactics.
And the tacics have nothing to do with being less truthful or more truthful.
It simply has to do with recognizing human nature.
Take this example of my approach to the subject:
"Gravity exists...OIM questions the geometric explanation of gravity. I, myself, favor an intrinsic explanation, not some "space-curvature" where proponents use steel balls on a rubber sheet, as in, they use "gravity" to explain gravity. For what after all causes the steel ball to stretch the rubber sheet downward?
Jeffery, it's an example of circular reasoning -- that's as close to "space-curvature" as we really get, "circular reasoning".
Actually, my position is similar to OilIsMastery's but I'm careful to acknowledge gravity exists, as it manifestly does exist.
OilIsMastery seems happpy for readers not to understand that part of the concept, that gravity does exist; he hurts himself with that type of antic.
I see your point, Anaconda.
ReplyDeleteJeffery,
ReplyDelete"Some 'scientists' attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The supression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system and the history of our study of the solar sytem shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." -- Carl Sagan, cosmologist, 1980
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious from the Venus tablet that Venus was a comet.
Therefore I disagree with the Van Der Sluijs on that point.
"And does this also possibly mean you will stop leading with your chin on this 'gravitation is a myth' obsession of yours, that only serves to get you ridiculed and mocked at various websites?"
Frankly Anaconda, the fact that the Newton cult can only ridicule and mock and can never present a single logical argument or scientific observation to support 17th century occultism simply reinforces my conviction. All of Leibniz's, Maupertuis's, and Velikovsky's criticisms are ignored. And it's no wonder why if you stop to think about it: gravitation is a myth. Continue to believe in 17th century mythology if you wish. I'm not going to nor will I ever.
"I mean even Electric Universe supporters are left baffled by your comments."
I doubt that. Most EU believers are familiar with and support the above referenced paper.
"OilIsMastery, you hurt your own credibility, and you allow vicious opponents to riduclue Plasma Universe theory, by allowing them to point at your comments as being representative of Plasma Universe theory."
So what? They would attack my credibility either way because they say the Emperor has the finest outfit they have ever seen and I say the Emperor has no clothes.
"Frankly, you also hurt the credibility of the Oil Is Mastery website. Surely, that is not your intention."
Gravitation is a myth. I don't care about my credibility; I care about the truth.
Pleroma,
ReplyDelete"I'm not clear on what OIM thinks about the validity of the equations for gravity themselves."
I think they are totally invalid.
"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942
"They have clearly been able to provide detailed accuracy with regard to predicting the motions of objects within the solar system."
If by accurate you mean more than 1 billion miles off.
"Here is the year 1845. Leverrier in France and Adams in England, out of perturbations of Uranus calculated, to the exactness of one degree of arc, the presence of a yet unseen planet. Both of them assumed that a planet of a size not larger than that of Uranus travels on an orbit at a distance dictated by Bode’s law. Neptune is actually of the size of Uranus, but the mean distance between their orbits is not ca. 1,750,000,000 miles, as Bode’s law required, but only ca. 1,000,000,000 miles; thus the error is equal to ascribing to Neptune a triple mass. The discovery of Pluto did not solve the conflict between the theory and the fact and caused also conflicting estimates of Pluto’s mass. Thus the finding of the planetary stations in relation to a chart of fixed stars is not enough; if the theory is true the distances must also be correct. And still the discovery of Neptune is regarded as the strongest proof of the Newtonian theory of celestial motions." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952
"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746
"However, neither Einstein's account of gravity in the theory of general relativity, nor Newton's spooky action at a distance version of gravity could be viable explanations for the mechanism that imparts the appearance of gravitation upon entities. Non-euclidean space makes no sense because space is just our perception of the relation of entities to one another, on the one hand, and magic is magic on the other. The fact that the science community on general has accepted both on faith is a symptom of their lack of philosophical sophistication rather than proof that the theories are true."
I agree 100%.
A particular example I was thinking of was NASA's apparent ability to launch a satellite at a planet, and calculate precisely how the motion of that satellite will be affected by the "gravity" of the planet. Let me know if I'm missing information, but I'd assume NASA would let the public know if the inverse square law didn't actually work in reality. Their understanding of the "mass" of objects may be mistaken, but if the inverse square law applies, then "gravitation" takes place, even if their understanding of the mechanism is faulty.
ReplyDeletePleroma,
ReplyDeleteIf the inverse square so-called "law" is valid, why is the moon falling away from the Earth at 3.8 cm/year?
@OIM
ReplyDeleteThe obvious answer is that the moon is traveling just a little bit faster than it would need to in order to stay in a perfectly stable orbit. What am I missing?
Pleroma,
ReplyDeleteHow fast is the moon travelling?
And relative to what?
Why isn't gravitation accelerating the moon towards the Earth and the Earth towards the moon?
@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteOilIsMastery states: "Continue to believe in 17th century mythology if you wish."
Sometimes, OilIsMastery, you have the perception of a cow and the memory of an ant.
Gravity exists.
But remember as I clearly stated, above, I don't buy the geometric/space curvature explanation. Also, if you recall, in a prior post's comment thread, I stated Newton had his limitations, principally due to the time in which he lived.
All scientific investigation is incomplete and subject to revision.
Newton is no exception.
I did review your link to Velikovsky. It is worth reading and highlights the necessity of observation & measurement as opposed to reliance on pure "thought experiments".
"Thought experiments" are hypothesis -- the attempt to think out a "map" for the territory. But the map is never the territory and "thought experiments", while a fine place to start an investigation are never a substitution for repeated observations & measurement whether in the laboratory or in the field.
Observation & measurement are the closest Man can get to the territory.
Newton allowed some of his conclusions to be the result of "thought experiments". And Einstein entirely relied on "thought experiments".
This reliance on "thought experiments" is a wrong turn for science.
By the way, pure mathematics devoid of observation & measurement are nothing but elaborate "thought experiments".
Any computer programmer will tell you computer programming 'code' is arbitrary, but will get the job done as long as it's internally consistent. It need not have any connection to the "outside" world to make the program run in the desired fashion or achieve the desired result.
Reading Velikovsky's piece also gives insight into the "defense of Newton" such as it is. Einstein simply took Newton and extrapolated on Newton's work as well as incorporating some 19th century ideas.
So, to the extent that Newton is inaccurate, it is impossible for Einstein's theories to have validity.
No wonder "modern" astronomy folks defend Newton as much as Einstein because Newton is the foundation for Einstein.
It truly is a case of looking down the wrong end of a telescope.
I will expound more on specifics later, but, again, OilIsMastery, you are guilty of what you accuse others of: You ignore what you don't want to hear.
I specifically did not say you were wrong, I [Anaconda] stated: "Frankly, it has more to do with persuasion and style."
Do you want to persuade people of the validity of your position and ideas or just be a dumb ass, who gets ridiculed and mocked so that whatever valid points you do enunciate get lost in the ridicule and mockery, so no one hears the message?
Surely, you aren't that stupid?
Please, for the sake of the valid points you want to express, learn to express them in a fashion that doesn't turn people away from the message or messenger.
Nobody appreciates the message if nobody understands the message or listens to it.
Again, for the message's sake and yours, learn to present your ideas in a way that does not instantly turn people away from you and your ideas.
Because right now that's what is happening.
You criticize other people for failing to consider and/or learn new ideas, and rightly so, but you, yourself, fail to learn new, more effective ways to communicate.
It's sad.
@OIM
ReplyDeleteLet me think on that a while.
Relative to one another they are motionless so you're point is taken. Rotational motion, however, empirically, doesn't seem to be relative. I'm thinking of spinning water or balls in a bucket. Two water molecules may be motionless relative to one another but the rotational motion relative to the rest of existence makes them move apart. But relative to the rest of existence is a tricky idea. I'd have a hard time accepting that the rotational motion of everything else in the universe draws objects away from one another.
Are you claiming that if you sent a rocket into space without putting it into orbit around the earth at a speed that would counteract the earth's "gravity", you would find that it wouldn't actually fall back to earth? For instance, if we slowed the ISS down it wouldn't start accelerating toward the planet?
Anaconda,
ReplyDelete"OilIsMastery, you are guilty of what you accuse others of: You ignore what you don't want to hear."
Perhaps so. I am human after all.
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10)
When you say that I ignore what I don't want to hear, it's not that I didn't read it. I read the part I disagreed with, saw that it was stupid, and then ignored it.
If that makes me a hypocrite, what am I supposed to tell you?
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, poet, 1855
"has more to do with persuasion and style"
I apologize for my personal failings and lack of diplomacy and persuasiveness.
Your criticism is noted and understood.
I will try to be more diplomatic, however I would like to make one key qualification: it is pointless to waste my time clarifying, being more thorough, or teaching people who do not want to be persuaded.
In those cases I have no problem ignoring them or even returning the ridicule in their direction.
@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteI have to point the finger at myself, as well. Yes, clearly I have written passages that weren't persuasive, particularly in regards to the person the missive was directed at.
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10)
Obviously, the above applies to myself as well, as I'm sure most readers will heartily agree.
It's a balancing act.
"You have to break eggs to make an omelet." -- Anonymous
Often times, the point is to persuade those readers that never comment because the readers who do comment often times are the ones that will never be persuaded (i.e., Tom Marking or Jeffery keown).
Although, the hope (yes, hope springs eternal) is that even these obdurate readers will be persuaded if only they would hold a reasonably sceptical, yet objective open-mind.
It should be noted that you, OilIsMastery, have brought to attention numerous observations & measurements that were "inconvient" for certain individuals and their particular dogma.
Sacred cows need to be sacrificed to the gods of reason for Man to advance in scientific understanding.
I don't like being tough on you, OilIsMastery, because you do an excellent job of researching material and bringing it to this, your, website.
And, of course, you are free to hold any views you see fit.
I just don't like to see you get chopped up on websites like UniverseToday.
Perhaps, pointing to the strongest material for a given issue would be beneficial.
For example, in the Velikovsky review of anomalous observations & measurements that contradict the conventional view of Newtonian gravitational mechanics, you linked, I found this interesting:
"5. The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown."
...
"One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours."
Velikovsky presented a hypothesis:
"11. The semi-diurnal variations of the barometric pressure. These variations with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. have their cause in the semi-diurnal changes of the charge of the ionosphere at the same hours, 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. The barometric pressure reflects the degree of attraction exerted by the ground and the ionosphere on the gaseous envelope."
Emphasis on:
"The barometric pressure reflects the degree of attraction exerted by the ground and the ionosphere on the gaseous envelope."
This is an interesting hypothesis.
Particularly if the atmosphere is an active electromagnetic environment as Electric Universe theorists postulate.
"Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems." -- Hannes Alfven, founder of modern plasma cosmology
Quite possibly the atmosphere is still an active electrical system. That might explain why there are so many atmospheric phenomenon that fit an electrical system profile as opposed to a gravity system.
It seems that the best scientific method is to investigate these phenomenon rather than respond in empty ridicule.
How many times has ridicule been directed at ideas that turned out to have scientific merit?
OIM,
ReplyDeleteI think maybe you're ignoring me or missed my post. If you do notice this, I genuinely want to understand where you're coming from because I agree with you on so many other issues. You don't seem to ever want to come out and say what you believe other than that gravity is a myth.
What is your disagreement with this account of electromagnetic "gravity". I assume you've read this before:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
Pleroma,
ReplyDeleteI say gravitation is a myth.
I agree with the Thornhill paper.
Gravity is electromagnetic.
See sidebar for gravitation quotes that summarize my position. I have reorganized the sidebar for clarification.
I like the reorganization.
ReplyDeleteI read all of that before. I agree with the quotes in the sidebar and I agree with the conclusions of articles you reference.
Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity are bunk. I figured that out a long time ago before I'd ever heard a good electromagnetic alternative theory.
Thornhill makes a lot of sense to me.
You don't.
I'm trying to get you to explain what you think is going on with, say, orbiting satellites, if it's not a matter of motion in a straight line being continually attracted toward the earth by electromagnetic force of the aligned dipoles of all the intervening atoms.
I've read you write before that you don't want to handhold people through explanations, but I don't think that's what I'm asking for.
It's like Plato's Meno. In order to have a conversation the two participants have to agree on what the meanings of the terms they are using are.
If electromagnetic force is not acting in a similar manner to what the myth of gravity was supposed to be doing, then how is it working in your mind? I would assume that, because electromagnetism in a wire acts according to an inverse square law, that perhaps it would do so on a macroscopic manner as well. But maybe not exactly. Evidence would suggest other forces are at work in the solar system that alter the inverse square law, or that electromagnetic force is variable and only works in a similar manner to "gravity" (see the quotes- I believe it is a myth, too) in the local vicinity of Earth.
Man made satellites fall out of the sky when the slow down too much and run out of energy to maintain their orbital velocity. I would say electromagnetic force is drawing them toward the earth. Velocity keeps them in orbit. You are the only person I have ever heard deny that some force is pulling objects toward the surface of the earth. Evidence would suggest other electromagnetic forces are at work, i.e. with regard to deflections of asteroids, etc. Electromagnetic force attracting objects to the surface of the earth varies around the globe, yes. Something, however, draws orbiting objects toward the planet. It may not be exactly according to the inverse square law, but it is close enough for government work. I know people who work with man-made satellites at NASA and that is empirical fact.
Pleroma,
ReplyDelete"I like the reorganization."
Thanks.
"I agree with the quotes in the sidebar and I agree with the conclusions of articles you reference."
Excellent.
"Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity are bunk. I figured that out a long time ago before I'd ever heard a good electromagnetic alternative theory."
You're ahead of the curve.
"Thornhill makes a lot of sense to me."
Me too.
"You don't."
Strange considering your previous comments but ok.
"I'm trying to get you to explain what you think is going on with, say, orbiting satellites, if it's not a matter of motion in a straight line being continually attracted toward the earth by electromagnetic force of the aligned dipoles of all the intervening atoms."
I don't know any planet that orbits in a straight line. The orbits I've seen are Keplerian ellipses.
"I've read you write before that you don't want to handhold people through explanations, but I don't think that's what I'm asking for."
That's why I'm brief.
"It's like Plato's Meno. In order to have a conversation the two participants have to agree on what the meanings of the terms they are using are."
Yes.
"If electromagnetic force is not acting in a similar manner to what the myth of gravity was supposed to be doing, then how is it working in your mind?"
There is a conceptual difference between gravity and gravitation. I accept the existence of gravity, if by gravity you mean that some objects fall to the Earth, but deny the existence of gravitation.
"I would assume that, because electromagnetism in a wire acts according to an inverse square law, that perhaps it would do so on a macroscopic manner as well."
To be honest, I don't understand electromagnetism either. If a proton is positive and an electron is negative, why don't they attract?
"But maybe not exactly. Evidence would suggest other forces are at work in the solar system that alter the inverse square law, or that electromagnetic force is variable and only works in a similar manner to "gravity" (see the quotes- I believe it is a myth, too) in the local vicinity of Earth."
"Man made satellites fall out of the sky when the slow down too much and run out of energy to maintain their orbital velocity."
Not every object in orbit has a horizontal velocity relative to the Earth. Motion is relative and relational. There is no such thing as absolute motion. There is no absolute Cartesian coordinate system.
"I would say electromagnetic force is drawing them toward the earth."
The ones that fall. The moon is falling away from the Earth.
"Velocity keeps them in orbit."
They don't need to have velocity. And motion is relative and relational.
"You are the only person I have ever heard deny that some force is pulling objects toward the surface of the earth."
You've misunderstood me. I've never said that.
"Evidence would suggest other electromagnetic forces are at work, i.e. with regard to deflections of asteroids, etc. Electromagnetic force attracting objects to the surface of the earth varies around the globe, yes. Something, however, draws orbiting objects toward the planet."
And something causes the moon and chemical elements to behave otherwise.
"It may not be exactly according to the inverse square law, but it is close enough for government work."
The moon is falling away from the Earth at 3.8 cm/year.
"I know people who work with man-made satellites at NASA and that is empirical fact."
I know some guys named Leibniz, Mach, and Velikovsky who said it's bullshit.
I think I misunderstood what you are saying, which is what I suspected, but Anaconda is right. You seem to go out of your way to sound like some of the millions of crackpots out there claiming that the moon landing never happened or that the earth is 6000 yrs old. It's too easy to read things like "gravity is a myth" and think that you are denying the appearances themselves.
ReplyDeletePleroma,
ReplyDeleteI do not go out of my way to "sound like some of the millions of crackpots out there claiming that the moon landing never happened or that the earth is 6000 yrs old."
I have never said that. Ever.
It is a straw man fallacy used for ad hominem fallacy purposes in order to discredit the hundreds of verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed sources on my blog.
I say gravitation is a myth; the moon is falling away from the Earth.
SLR indicates the moon is falling away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 cm/year, defying both gravitation and gravity.
ReplyDeleteOIM,
ReplyDeleteI never said you said either of those things. I've just noticed that some people react to many of your statements as if you had said something crackpottish. Instead of explaining yourself in a way that would lead them out of error, you tend to sound aggravated and say things like "SLR indicates the moon is falling away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 cm/year, defying both gravitation and gravity."
Yes, the moon is falling away from the earth at 3.8 cm per year.
What I learned in high school, which I am willing to doubt if I heard an argument that explained why I should (I am open to doubt because electromagnetism also causes elliptical motion): The Keplerian Ellipse is the result of two vectors. An initial straight line motion relative to the earth and another motion toward the earth which is caused by whatever force it is that seems to pull objects straight down toward its surface. If the force that pulled the moon toward the earth were suddenly stopped, the moon would continue straight along whatever vector was tangent to the ellipse at that exact moment. Motion away from or toward the earth would be the result of whatever velocity of the initial vector was. The fact that the moon is so close to being in a stable orbit is what is surprising. But most physicists arguments I've read for that involve a type of anthropic principle where many objects did not have the right velocity and either fell into the earth or escaped orbit. Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending that type of accretion model of the solar system. I would not be surprised at all if all bodies in the solar system were created from z pinched currents in plasma in place right where they are.
I am simply confused by your assertion that this is impossible--that because the moon and earth are in relative motion it makes no sense. I doubt anyone else is returning to look at this thread anymore, but if anyone is, could you please explain to me what OIM's argument is? Maybe a different formulation would help me understand.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteHere's another explanation for the 3.8 cm per year:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
Pleroma,
ReplyDelete"I've just noticed that some people react to many of your statements as if you had said something crackpottish."
They say anyone who says the naked Emperor has no clothes is a crackpot.
"The Keplerian Ellipse is the result of two vectors."
How do you know that? How do you know it's not the result of one or of infinite vectors?
"An initial straight line motion relative to the earth and another motion toward the earth which is caused by whatever force it is that seems to pull objects straight down toward its surface."
According to General Relativity there is no such thing as a straight line.
"If the force that pulled the moon toward the earth were suddenly stopped, the moon would continue straight along whatever vector was tangent to the ellipse at that exact moment."
How do you know that?
How do you know the moon is moving at all? Motion is relative.
"Motion away from or toward the earth would be the result of whatever velocity of the initial vector was."
How do you know that?
"The fact that the moon is so close to being in a stable orbit is what is surprising."
The moon isn't in a stable orbit. If you extrapolate back in time using current assuptions the results are catastrophic.
"But most physicists arguments I've read for that involve a type of anthropic principle where many objects did not have the right velocity and either fell into the earth or escaped orbit."
This is the creationist Newtonian conclusion based upon your assumptions above.
"I am simply confused by your assertion that this is impossible--that because the moon and earth are in relative motion it makes no sense. I doubt anyone else is returning to look at this thread anymore, but if anyone is, could you please explain to me what OIM's argument is? Maybe a different formulation would help me understand."
Gravitation says objects are attracted to eachother proportional to their mass so why aren't all masses in space colliding and forming a massive black hole?
Pleroma,
ReplyDelete"http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124"
I reject occult tidal theories which say the tides of the Earth cause antigravity.
I have seen no evidence that indicates gravity is less on the side of the Earth with the moon.
See sidebar for details.
Your article says and I quote, "Many physicists considered the effects of tides on the Earth-Moon system. However, George Howard Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) was the first person to work out, in a mathematical way, how the Moon's orbit would evolve due to tidal friction, in the late 19th century. He is usually credited with the invention of the modern theory of tidal evolution."
ReplyDeleteThe dogmatic idiot has obviously never read Darwin.
"…in the course of our experiments, we were led away from the primary object of the Committee, namely, the measurement of the Lunar Disturbance of Gravity…." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882
"...certain theoretical investigations ... appear to me to throw doubt on the utility of very minute gravitational observations." -- George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882
And on this subject Galileo chimes in as well:
"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632
Thanks, I see your argument now. Very skeptical, but sound.
ReplyDelete"How do you know the moon is moving at all? Motion is relative."
I don't know. There is no way to prove that. But I am skeptical that the solar system is rotating in epicycles, which you know it must do if the moon were motionless and only the rest of the solar system were moving in relation to it. Or does everything move in epicycles in relation to everything else and it's Ptolemy FTW?
Do you think even rotational motion is relative?
ReplyDeleteMy tone here is not dubious, just curious.
The universe rotates around a spinning water bucket, thus drawing the water molecules it contains away from the center and up its sides?
Pleroma,
ReplyDelete"Do you think even rotational motion is relative?"
Sure. If you're standing on the Earth, it's the stars that rotate.
Ptolemy ftw.
@Pleroma "However, neither Einstein's account of gravity in the theory of general relativity, nor Newton's spooky action at a distance version of gravity could be viable explanations for the mechanism that imparts the appearance of gravitation upon entities."
ReplyDelete@OIM "I say gravitation is a myth.
I agree with the Thornhill paper.
Gravity is electromagnetic."
If so, isn't EM still "spooky action at a distance"? See Coulomb's law of electrical attraction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
It works the same way as Newton's law of gravitation - the same inverse square relationship. It is action at a distance. Why is an EM solution better at all? It appears to be gravity renamed, that's all.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteThe difference being that electrons have been observed and gravitons never.
You're correct in saying Coulomb's Law is flawed.
If protons are positive and electrons are negative how come they aren't attracted to one another?
@OIM "Tom, The difference being that electrons have been observed and gravitons never."
ReplyDeleteI think you are confusing the base particle with the exchange particle. The EM to gravity comparison would be as follows:
base EM: electron, proton
base Gravity: electron, proton, neutron
exchange EM: photon
exchange Gravity: graviton
It is the exchange particle for gravity (i.e., the graviton) that has never been observed whereas the exchange particle for EM (i.e., the photon) has. The base particle for gravity has been observed.
"You're correct in saying Coulomb's Law is flawed."
Coulomb's Law is at the heart of EM theory. Since you say it is flawed what do you seek to replace it with?
"If protons are positive and electrons are negative how come they aren't attracted to one another?"
Because EM is not the only force acting in the universe. At the level of the very small, quantum mechanics holds sway which says that the electrons must exist in discrete orbits around the nucleus. They can only jump from orbit to orbit and there is a minimum distance orbit (i.e., the ground state) which is the smallest orbit they can jump to.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velstcol.html
ReplyDelete"ONE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE Velikovsky movement would have ended with the "crucial test" of the Greenland ice cores (Kronos 10:1, 1984), first proposed by R.G.A. Dolby in 1977.1 A visible layer of debris in the ice caused by Velikovsky's planet-juggling catastrophes, especially from the 40 years of darkness at the Exodus, was never found. In 1986-7, Lynn Rose, a Velikovsky devotee (and then philosophy professor at SUNY-Buffalo) writing in Kronos, suggested Velikovsky's signal is the ice in the so-called "brittle" zones of deep cores, deposited between Venus and Mars episodes, when supposedly Earth's axis had no tilt. Assuming Velikovsky correct, Rose discounted the fact that the dates of the brittle zones did not match Velikovsky's dates and ignored the concordance of tree rings and ocean sediments with ice cores. This, of course, makes a mockery of the "interdisciplinary synthesis" heralded by Velikovskians. In 1994 Charles Ginenthal, writing in The Velikovskian, suggested the bulk of the Greenland ice was deposited almost overnight. With Kronos defunct, Sean Mewhinney refuted Rose in 1990 with "Ice Cores & Common Sense" in Catastrophism & Ancient History2 and Ginenthal in 1998 with "Minds in Ablation" at (http://www.pibburns.com/smmia.htm), exposing their absurdities in exhaustive detail. [Another critical examination of Rose's bizarre and deliberately misleading reaction to the record in the Greenland ice cores, "Litmus Tests in the Ice", was prepared in 1992 for publication in Aeon and is available via e-mail by request from this writer. The reader should understand that (a) in the GRIP and GISP cores from Summit Camp, Greenland, the top-most 84,000 annual layers of ice are visible to the naked eye and (b) in the glaciers of Tibet and Peru the most recent 4,000+ annual dust layers in the ice are also visible to the naked eye; and NO indication of any cataclysmic episode such as described by Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision is apparent by gross confrontation or detected via instrumentation.] This denial of the clear message from the ice cores is an example of "invincible ignorance," reminiscent of the flat earthers' rejection in 1870 of Alfred Russel Wallace's proof of the Earth's curvature, tested on the Old Bedford Canal. [On 26 April 1994, on talk.origins, David Boucher replied cogently to John Godowski's "VELIKOVSKY--an approach to heresy" (a reposting by Walter Alter of Greg O'Rear's 30 July 1993 post), "The objection to Velikovsky has nothing to do with 'HERESY' or resistance to unconventional ideas--it is rather that Velikovskianism is an absurd fantasy, on a par with a belief that the earth is flat.""
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vsachs.html
ReplyDeleteAddress of Abraham Sachs
"In the so-called Venus Tablets of Ammisaduqa, which were copied and recopied over many centuries, Dr. Velikovsky sees in the few scribal errors evidence for the irregularity of Venus and carefully avoids the rest of the text that shows a high degree of regularity indeed."
Tom,
ReplyDelete"base Gravity: electron, proton, neutron"
Gravity has never been observed at the subatomic level.
Tom,
ReplyDelete"Because EM is not the only force acting in the universe."
At least you concede EM is a force acting in the universe.
"At the level of the very small, quantum mechanics holds sway which says that the electrons must exist in discrete orbits around the nucleus. They can only jump from orbit to orbit and there is a minimum distance orbit (i.e., the ground state) which is the smallest orbit they can jump to."
That doesn't explain why opposite charges repel.
Tom,
ReplyDelete"Few scribal errors?"
LOL.
I guess every line is in error?
@OIM "At least you concede EM is a force acting in the universe."
ReplyDeleteThis is not exactly some type of news flash. Of course, I subscribe to the Coulomb force law. It's not clear what flavor of EM theory you subscribe to.
"That doesn't explain why opposite charges repel."
If an electron is in a stable atomic orbit it does not recede from the nucleus. What repulsion are you talking about?
@OIM "Gravity has never been observed at the subatomic level."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't matter. Planets and stars are composed of these particles and gravitational forces have been observed between planets and stars.
Tom,
ReplyDelete"If an electron is in a stable atomic orbit it does not recede from the nucleus. What repulsion are you talking about?"
Opposite charges are supposed to attract. Why don't they attract? And what about electrons that aren't in a stable orbit?
Tom,
ReplyDelete"That doesn't matter. Planets and stars are composed of these particles and gravitational forces have been observed between planets and stars."
LOL.
@OIM "Opposite charges are supposed to attract. Why don't they attract? And what about electrons that aren't in a stable orbit?"
ReplyDeleteThey don't attract because on the scale of the very small (<< 1.0E-8 meters) quantum mechanics overrides EM and EM is no longer the dominant force.