Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornblower
This pretty well sums up my opinion of your writing, which appears to show a vivid imagination but a serious lack of understanding of basic physics. Our spinning planet is not being powered to maintain a constant velocity, and its gravitationally bound orbital motion is dynamically very different from static floating in a pool of water. I could go on and on, but I do not wish to waste the time and effort. In my opinion your posts belong in the medieval era, before Copernicus and others began restoring physics to the line of thought about the movements in the universe around us.
|
You have taken my example out of context, and I apologise for my lack of clarity. The purpose of this example was not to suggest an alternative to the physics of orbital motion, but to illustrate by a visual model how a wobbling top will generate complex wave functions in a permanently stable context. This applies whether it is a ball in a pool of water or a planet in space. The annual wave function of our planet is observable in its effects on surface cycles such as temperature, plant growth, etc. The purpose of this crude model was to illustrate how this annual wave could contribute to the internal structure of a much longer wave function produced by the axial wobble. This is a legitimate empirical hypothesis which has been ignored due to ‘guilt by association’ with pre-modern concepts. Looking back at these older thought forms, it is legitimate to ask if their wholesale rejection by science may have dismissed some ideas, such as the signs, which reflect an unknown underlying mathematical reality.