 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Frank Reed (no email)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2006 - 02:34:46 EST
Bill, you wrote:
"That whole circle/sphere/uniform motion ran through Copernicus, and
partially through Kepler et al."
Have I got a trick for you. If you give me any graph of any physical
phenomenon whatsoever, I can write a representation of it in terms of a series of
uniform circular motions having various amplitudes and frequencies. Cool, huh?
[just to be careful here, a system of epicycles is analogous to, but not
equivalent to, a Fourier analysis]
And:
" Problem being, no math or physics, and only approximate measurements, to
prove/disprove theories. Not dissimilar to the state we can still find
"advanced" physics
in, IMHO."
There would be no major, lasting advance in theories of the Solar System
until telescopes were invented and evidence could test the competing models.
I agree with you (assuming I've understood you) that fundamental physics is
in a similar bind today. Physics works perfectly. There is no conflict with
experiment or observation. And until there is, who can say whether things like
string theory/brane theory etc have more in common with the Ptolemaic system
of the Copernican one. Without the test of experiment, we are at a
standstill, and the subject slowly degenerates. [<begin rant mode>speaking of
degenerating physics, and I apologize for being way off-topic now (e-mail me
off-list if this interests you), did anyone see the stories recently about a
discovery of "antigravity" in a "new solution" of the field equations of general
relativity?? holy cow, any incompetent twit can claim to be a physicist today!
<end rant mode>]
-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
|