1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. comp.lang.prolog

  • Orbits of planets in the Sol System

    From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,comp.lang.prolog on Thu Dec 4 03:30:19 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

    Ross Finlayson wrote:
    notions like Kepler's banishment of epicycles and as
    after about Bode's law

    The _TitiusrCoBode_ law (1766/1772) was proposed much later than Kepler (16th century), obviously. And to date nobody understands why it approximately
    works for the Sol System:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TitiusrCoBode_law>

    then as for inverse square the Keplerian geometric way

    Yes, Kepler's idea was that the "harmonics of the world" would be
    represented by inscribed Platonic solids to determine the distances between
    the orbits of the Planets. However, he was scientist enough to accept eventually that, given Tycho Brahe's detailed observations, the circular
    orbits that resulted from that would not work: ellipses were required.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Astronomy>

    then that the Newtonian "System of the World" after
    the Keplerian "System of the World" or Harmonisches Mundi

    _/harmonices mundi/_ (Latin for "_harmonics_ of the world")

    after the Muslim "System of the Heavens"

    Doubtful. Kepler was a devout Christian who sought to discover/understand "God's design of the Universe".

    and that, that, in the solar system today,
    the force vector of gravity always points at the
    source not the image,

    What is that supposed to mean?

    so, it's quite Newtonian

    Only approximately, and that is where General Relativity fills the gap in
    our understanding. So far, only GR can explain, and predict very precisely, the additional motion of the perihelion of orbits as, 200 years after
    Newton, eventually became measurable with the orbit of Mercury.

    and even Galilean the current state of the solar system,

    No.

    while it is yet so that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational are in effect,

    Nonsense.

    as with regards to a notion like "fall-gravity" of course.

    I.e., Einstein's later "attack on Newton" is a matter
    of mechanics itself as much as about relativity and
    mass-energy-equivalency, getting into why the gyroscopic
    effects as of the kinematic up after "pseudo"-momentum
    and the space-contraction-rotational, has that Einstein's
    second and much-less-well-known mass-energy-equivalency
    derivation, about the centrally symmetric, helps establish
    the concern overall as, "un-linear", for a potentialistic
    theory and sum-of-potentials and revisiting the Lagrangian
    the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction.

    Pseudo-scientific word salad.

    Sadly, your mind is still very confused.

    F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2