Started by Unbeliever, July 08, 2019, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 20, 2019, 06:42:33 AMI admire your optimism, but I don't share it, not for the immediate future. Physics needs a revamp, and most likely with a new generation. Changes only come with great pain. We haven't gone through that pain, though there are cracks beginning to show.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 07:49:37 AMI think that our current theories of reality is/are getting a bit too weird and that "The Next Genius" is going to help us return to something more comprehensible.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2019, 02:03:51 PMHell, I think the current theories aren't weird enough - the universe isn't just weirder than we suppose, it's weirder than we can suppose.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2019, 03:00:47 PMCopernicus didn't entirely eliminate epicycles:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDgxYp8RCfASo the Copernican heliocentrism still had epicycles, which were removed by Kepler's elliptic orbits.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 04:43:08 PMIt is commonly mis-taught, that Copernicus' heliocentric system as simpler.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 05:59:37 PMNo, it isn't.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 07:25:48 PMI think, initially, the "simpler" of Copernicus (he actually used more epicycles than Ptolemy) would only be apparent to an expert. Ellipses are much simpler than either system.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 12:09:57 PMIn retrospect, 2 orbital bodies and a common center of gravity not the center of one seems obvious Giants of the retrospective obvious we stand on...
Quote from: trdsf on August 23, 2019, 07:18:14 PMAnd Kepler came up with ellipses without a theory of gravity, which is nothing less than brilliance.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2019, 10:59:30 PMHe had originally tried Platonic Solids ... to explain the planets. But yes, Kepler was a brilliant applied mathematician. He took Brahe's observations (two angular measurements of position vs time) and then converted that to non-circular orbits. Since it was truly simply than either Ptolemy or Copernicus ... it seemed just right.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 12:21:55 AMBut he had the correct equation but made a simple error and missed the right answer for a couple years.
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 12:57:54 AMI treat you, like you treat me ;-) Please provide links.