🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Mar, 03:49, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 19, 12:14 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Considering that there is a new orbital component to look at,why
> > bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
> > productive work from being done.
>
> The reason to look at simpler solutions first is to accomplish a
> success and to prove principles in a simplest possible manner. Only
> when principles are proven in such a simple manner, e.g. through
> employing principles of the inertial flywheel described here, more
> inductrialy feasible versions of the same flywheel can be completed.
> These more promising versions are outlibnes briefly at the blog from
>

I am an astronomer who deals with physical considerations of planetary
motion and occasionally use analogies of dynamics at a human level to
carry a point however there is a limit to the connection between
terrestrial ballistics and planetary motion despite the fact that most
here simply extend ballistics agenda to planetary motion as a 'law' or
ideology,Newton's 'universal law of gravitation' being an example of
this.

I have argued that the framework which Newton worked off is an
untenable one,a framework created by Flamsteed for his own agenda of
determining terrestrial longitudes via celestial sphere geometry.In
short,Newton's take on planetary motions has never worked,he ytalks
up  a system of 365.25 days but tries to affirm his observations with
a 365/366 day calendrical system.In short,the clockwork solar system
of Newton is even worse,it is a calendrically driven clockwork solar
system.


addresseshttp://www.getablog.net/totalizmhttp://totalizm.wordpress.comhttp://totalizm.myblog.nethttp://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
>
> Witht he totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
> P.S. Anyway, I see and appreciate your determination to agree to
> disagree. Where I can see your perfect device at work?

Nowadays I have no real regard for being sucked into
contention,although it can be enjoyable to go through the ins and outs
of what is correct and what went wrong,it is much better to promote
more productive things such as the new orbital component for those who
can rise to the challenge.Only those who hoplessly subscribe to the
ideology which ties the experimental lab to the celestial arena
without any regard for astronomical methods ,insights and physical
considerations are holding up productive work ,their methods still
contain the astrological core at the heart of all their observations
and conclusions .

What you last sentence means,I do not know,I am an astronomer and not
an inventor.