Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (olegt @ April 13 2012,05:48)|
|Joe demonstrates his awesome knowledge of orbital mechanics: |
Joe: I understand orbital mechanics. And YOU cannot demonstrate the orbital mechanics of a universe with one star and one planet/ moon system.
me: No, you donít. You donít even know that a single planet can have a stable orbit around a star.
Joe: Wrong again, oleg. YOU canít even keep the context straight. BTW I never said that a single planet cannot have a stable orbit around a star- never.
me: Yes, you did. You kept asking silly questions like this: "How does it stay away, oleg? Remember there is only that system in the entire universe."
Joe: Oleg- CONTEXT is everything- I was talking about a one star universe- one star with one planet/ moon system.
me: Yes, thatís precisely the system that is stable and does not require any support from outside.
Joe: So you say yet cannot demonstrate.
me: Of course I can. It was first demonstrated by Newton, who derived Keplerís laws from Newtonian mechanics and the law of gravity. It has been textbook stuff for centuries. And you are blissfully unaware of it. Case closed.
Joe: No you canít, Newton never dealt with a one star universe- you are a liar.
me: That is precisely what Newton did. He considered a single star with a single planet orbiting it. That is known as the Kepler problem in mechanics.
Joe: No, Newton did NOT deal with a ONE STAR UNIVERSE- a one star system, but NOT a ONE STAR UNIVERSE.
me: No, Joe, you are wrong. Newton considered a problem in which there was one star, one planet, and nothing else. Literally. It is a universe with one star and one planet. Go ahead, look it up.
Joe: He couldnít have- how would such a system come into existence?
me: He did not address the question of its origin. Itís irrelevant. He considered the dynamics of such a system. Itís stable. Go ahead, click on the link: Kepler problem. It wonít bite you. :)
Joe: If he didnít address the question of origin then he has nothing. Not only that but he was unaware of the fabric of space-time. And taht means he is irrelevant to this discussion.
So if Newton didn't discuss the origin of the planet, its colour, or whether it has caek, he couldn't determine its motion. †Brilliant.
Joe: †Research scientist. †All kinds of floors.
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... ¬†The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG