h***@public.gmane.org
2014-01-21 02:59:21 UTC
..than the point of effectively calling it a day, on all effort to keep trying to extend.
For example, staying with Newton, his equations resolve a two body gravitational system to a precise tangential velocity for a precise position in the period. But cannot explain why the much smaller body had precisely the right velocity in the first place.
The random coincidence explanation would be vanishingly improbable for just that one system, let alone all the other bodies, not just in the solar system, but the whole galaxy.
The inferences are probably available all the way to a theory of solar system origins as a spinning disc, and beyond, going a long way toward an accurate description of the primordial galaxy, and universe beyond.
Why this wasn't pursued interesting, because there are many other instances something similar, and the consistent correlation they all share is between the way they set the discovery process up in the first place, in terms of what working concepts were introduced to the process. And the furthest extent they are able to take that discover, within that process.
The furtherest extent of discovery seems to use only working concepts introduced at
the start
The challenge immediately next, which by definition they failed to discover, seems to depend on one or more working concept that is not in the initial set up.
Which is interesting, because there are no accepted rules stipulating anything like this., Nor is anything like this suspected or assumed.
For example, staying with Newton, his equations resolve a two body gravitational system to a precise tangential velocity for a precise position in the period. But cannot explain why the much smaller body had precisely the right velocity in the first place.
The random coincidence explanation would be vanishingly improbable for just that one system, let alone all the other bodies, not just in the solar system, but the whole galaxy.
The inferences are probably available all the way to a theory of solar system origins as a spinning disc, and beyond, going a long way toward an accurate description of the primordial galaxy, and universe beyond.
Why this wasn't pursued interesting, because there are many other instances something similar, and the consistent correlation they all share is between the way they set the discovery process up in the first place, in terms of what working concepts were introduced to the process. And the furthest extent they are able to take that discover, within that process.
The furtherest extent of discovery seems to use only working concepts introduced at
the start
The challenge immediately next, which by definition they failed to discover, seems to depend on one or more working concept that is not in the initial set up.
Which is interesting, because there are no accepted rules stipulating anything like this., Nor is anything like this suspected or assumed.