Philosophy Now Forum

Prove it.

Copernicus knowing that the church would probably kill him because of his theories released at his death bed his written work showing that the earth and all the other planets circled the sun. His written works are not crude, as a matter of fact, they are beautifully and factually written and not to be dismissed so easily as not clumsy thinking. Copernicus changed the world's way of thinking of where we stand.

Kepler's works Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy.Kepler described his new astronomy as "celestial physics", as "an excursion into Aristotle's Metaphysics", and as "a supplement to Aristotle's On the Heavens", transforming the ancient tradition of physical cosmology by treating astronomy as part of a universal mathematical physics.

Barbara Brooks wrote:Prove it.

Prove what?

Barbara Brooks wrote:Copernicus knowing that the church would probably kill him because of his theories released at his death bed his written work showing that the earth and all the other planets circled the sun. His written works are not crude, as a matter of fact, they are beautifully and factually written and not to be dismissed so easily as not clumsy thinking. Copernicus changed the world's way of thinking of where we stand.

I didn't for a moment say they were clumsy thinking. I said that the mathematics was crude because he didn't get the orbits correct so it's not particularly useful for predicting planetary motion. Conceptually it is brilliant and I have a huge amount of respect for Copernicus but you'll need to look elsewhere if you want to predict planetary motion.

Barbara Brooks wrote:Kepler's works Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy.Kepler described his new astronomy as "celestial physics", as "an excursion into Aristotle's Metaphysics", and as "a supplement to Aristotle's On the Heavens", transforming the ancient tradition of physical cosmology by treating astronomy as part of a universal mathematical physics.

And Newton refined things further and so on and so on and everyone's standing on the shoulder of giants and all that but the fact remains that General Relativity provides the best explanatory theory we have.

I am not Newton fan. He only proved that everything turns on a path is an ellipse but was Laplace who showed not only an elliptic but the force which keeps the planets in orbit.Newton’s law of descent is only part of the universal movement and already implied by Kepler. Newton, did give the law of motion ground but it was not a good one. In the first place the extension to the moon is only a part of gravitational force, the rule of motion of the planets to their satellites, a limited point. Newton merely generalized gravity by giving it a visible example such as a stone or apple falling.

Proof belongs to the process of mathematics through and through, excludes everything that is not conceptually grasped by mind.

It took Johannes Kepler twenty-seven years to determine the law of universal gravitation. He had complete faith that in the heaven reason was there and arrived at his law. Johannes Kepler, born December 27, 1571 in Weil Germany built law of “universal gravitation” from the hypotheses of Nicolaus Copernicus, Born February 19, 1473. Also, from the observations of Tycho Brahe, born December 14, 1546 and of William Gilbert, born May 24, 1540, magnetic philosophy.

.





As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
~~~ Albert Einstein ~~~




.

Now and here t has tremendous right because as soon as I pronounce now and here the moment passes away, falls into dust into another here and now . If everything stood still even our imagination everything would endure but all things are temporal and subject to change. Therefore the only standpoint is now and here. The continuous unfolding of things is what makes time an out and out abstract ideal when in as much it is, it is not and in as much it is not, it is.

.



Well stated Barbara...



.

Thank you Bill. What no photograph!?

While Copernicus assumed the path was elliptic Kepler demonstrated elliptic motion can only be a circle uniform, a path and can only coincide equal with the radii. The radii can only differ from the circle empirically, because the radius belongs essentially to the function of the path. If the path differed, so to must the radii, thus, the circle transcends and the radius accelerates.

The path and radii are inseparably connected the ellipse being two lines connected to one curved called centrifugal motion, or curve, or arc. Whereas centripetal is called the radius, the diagonal sides. The centrifugal one motion and centripetal motion there are two. Together radii and path are called the sector.
There is only one beam, of light, to explain more clear, the ellipse has only one path while the radius has two. The radius being the shining light, the boundary of sight; if the path differs so too the light. Radii is the sun rays of light that decide our perception.

Barbara Brooks wrote:... Newton merely generalized gravity by giving it a visible example such as a stone or apple falling.

Not sure what you mean here? As the apples and stones story is pretty much apocryphal, I thought what Newton did was summarize earlier views by stating three laws of motion and their equations?

From the free encyclopedia. Newton himself often told the story that he was inspired to formulate his theory of gravitation by watching the fall of an apple from a tree in the year 1666 he retired again from Cambridge to his mother in Lincolnshire. Whilst he was pensively meandering in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity (which brought an apple from a tree to the ground) was not limited to a certain distance from earth, but that this power must extend much further than was usually thought. Why not as high as the Moon said he to himself & if so, that must influence her motion & perhaps retain her in her orbit, whereupon he fell a calculating what would be the effect of that supposition.

My apologies, I stand corrected.

No Problem.

Zeno’s dialectic is un-rufuted to this present day. Hypothesis are not under any law or causes, for instance, I assert something that is null; then I show this by hypothesis and it follows that it is null. But another consciousness does not assert this. This is metaphysics and very confusing. I declare one thing to be true, another has the right to assert something else to be true.

In Plato’s Parmenides (pp 127,128) Socrates says, Zeno in his writings asserts fundamentally the same as does Parmenides that all is one but he would delude us into believing that he was telling something new. Kant, stated, we know appearances only. Space and time are two absolute opposites but they are one moment and it was Zeno who first showed their contradiction.


-

Proof belongs the process of numbers, used in common every one first has to learn among the elements of education.

Numbers have purpose and a function, which consists in laws, cannot to be transformed and transmuted can only be conceptually grasped in the mind. It was Parmenides who demonstrated like and unlike, how nothing turns into something if thought of; that absolute cannot exist, for then absolute would be no longer absolute and that being is determined by a relation among those identical to their respective spheres. Very difficult to demonstrate absolute in reference to visible things.