C
cassini
Guest
Continued:
Now watch what could be called GEOCENTRIC PHYSICS:
Now if Newton’s theory was/is the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of gravitation? We have put this simple question to many - even some at a university lecture that would like to believe they understand how Newton’s theory works - but rarely did we receive the right answer. The hard fact is, of course, apples falling to the ground might well be pushed down. In other words gravity could well be a pushing effect not a pulling effect.
‘When Kepler tried to explain by mechanics how a planet moves in its orbit, he thought there must be some force constantly pushing the planet from behind.’
And so we come to a pushing force for gravity instead of a pulling force. We introduce this particular section only as a means to further undermine the claim that Newton established true causes for heliocentricism. The ideas we shall now consider are almost certainly as big a load of moonshine as Newton’s and are not offered to readers as a true alternative or falsification but only to show that scientific theories can be invented at will.
By 1781, George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. He proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on the surface of a sphere it goes nowhere. If however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would move due to ‘non-equilibrium’.
HELIOCENTRIC PHYSICS ONLY PLEASE
So, what happened to Le Sage’s and other theories? Well there are two answers to this question, one at the ‘scientific’ level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In this case however, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like many other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics nor the mathematics of Le Sage’s theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt plan¬etary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a fellow and president of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later again however, as is prone to happen in theoretical physics, Le Sage’s theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science, and again I stress, for what it is worth, now holds that such particle collisions can be ‘elastic’ on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. Le Sage’s theory, they now hold, would not melt planetary bodies so why wasn’t it readmitted as a possible scientific theory for cosmic movement.
‘A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage…Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’ Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.
And if we are still in ignorance of the cause of gravity we witness and can measure as it happens, then how can they tell us this same gravity operates a heliocentric physics’ solar system? Consult any textbook and we will find Newton’s universal gravitation theory, affirmed heliocentricism and was accepted and adopted from the moment Newton’s Principia was published. The establishment had no need for any PHYSICS that could be used to deny the Earthmovers and Sun Fixers their victory, and the Royal Society made sure that anyone who might propose otherwise would not get too far with it. Everything except their own ‘laws’ was abandoned on ideological grounds and little else. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the Earthmovers’ revolution.
‘This method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudo-sciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.’ —N.M. Gwynne
But now we have a new physics emerging, one that is far more Geocentric than heliocentric - the electromagnetic universe. My preference is for such a universe.
Now watch what could be called GEOCENTRIC PHYSICS:
Now if Newton’s theory was/is the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of gravitation? We have put this simple question to many - even some at a university lecture that would like to believe they understand how Newton’s theory works - but rarely did we receive the right answer. The hard fact is, of course, apples falling to the ground might well be pushed down. In other words gravity could well be a pushing effect not a pulling effect.
‘When Kepler tried to explain by mechanics how a planet moves in its orbit, he thought there must be some force constantly pushing the planet from behind.’
And so we come to a pushing force for gravity instead of a pulling force. We introduce this particular section only as a means to further undermine the claim that Newton established true causes for heliocentricism. The ideas we shall now consider are almost certainly as big a load of moonshine as Newton’s and are not offered to readers as a true alternative or falsification but only to show that scientific theories can be invented at will.
By 1781, George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. He proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on the surface of a sphere it goes nowhere. If however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would move due to ‘non-equilibrium’.
HELIOCENTRIC PHYSICS ONLY PLEASE
So, what happened to Le Sage’s and other theories? Well there are two answers to this question, one at the ‘scientific’ level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In this case however, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like many other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics nor the mathematics of Le Sage’s theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt plan¬etary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a fellow and president of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later again however, as is prone to happen in theoretical physics, Le Sage’s theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science, and again I stress, for what it is worth, now holds that such particle collisions can be ‘elastic’ on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. Le Sage’s theory, they now hold, would not melt planetary bodies so why wasn’t it readmitted as a possible scientific theory for cosmic movement.
‘A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage…Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’ Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.
And if we are still in ignorance of the cause of gravity we witness and can measure as it happens, then how can they tell us this same gravity operates a heliocentric physics’ solar system? Consult any textbook and we will find Newton’s universal gravitation theory, affirmed heliocentricism and was accepted and adopted from the moment Newton’s Principia was published. The establishment had no need for any PHYSICS that could be used to deny the Earthmovers and Sun Fixers their victory, and the Royal Society made sure that anyone who might propose otherwise would not get too far with it. Everything except their own ‘laws’ was abandoned on ideological grounds and little else. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the Earthmovers’ revolution.
‘This method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudo-sciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.’ —N.M. Gwynne
But now we have a new physics emerging, one that is far more Geocentric than heliocentric - the electromagnetic universe. My preference is for such a universe.
