In my post, Two Productive Research Programs in the Early 19th Century, one of the programs that I wrote about was the assumption of action-at-a-distance.
Inverse square relations depend upon the notional perimeter manifold having the same “shape” as the source, the way a sphere circumscribes a point. If a source were, for example, linear, its surface outline would be a cylinder, and the range-dependent attenuation is reciprocal, not inverse square. A surface source wouldn’t have any fall-off at all. Our sun is spherical, so can be modeled as if its mass were concentrated at its center, but one can imagine other shapes that would break such assumptions.
Sophist, anti-Kepler propaganda, basically 'trying' to confuse you, using big words, in an attempt to illustrate superior knowledge, in order to devalue Kepler and resubstantiate the crumbling newtonian alchemistic, plagiarised, Sarpy-directed cosmology.
Most folks here realise electricity and magnetism is fundamental to physics (and in my opinion, metaphysics). Plaice's history is clear enough for a non-mathematic mind; nothing a few youtube vid.'s can't help visualise if necessary.
Inverse square relations depend upon the notional perimeter manifold having the same “shape” as the source, the way a sphere circumscribes a point. If a source were, for example, linear, its surface outline would be a cylinder, and the range-dependent attenuation is reciprocal, not inverse square. A surface source wouldn’t have any fall-off at all. Our sun is spherical, so can be modeled as if its mass were concentrated at its center, but one can imagine other shapes that would break such assumptions.
Heavy mental workout...
Sophist, anti-Kepler propaganda, basically 'trying' to confuse you, using big words, in an attempt to illustrate superior knowledge, in order to devalue Kepler and resubstantiate the crumbling newtonian alchemistic, plagiarised, Sarpy-directed cosmology.
Most folks here realise electricity and magnetism is fundamental to physics (and in my opinion, metaphysics). Plaice's history is clear enough for a non-mathematic mind; nothing a few youtube vid.'s can't help visualise if necessary.
The idea that I am trying to promote a cosmology inspired or directed by Paolo Sarpi is preposterous. See, for example, my post "Sarpi and Galileo Were Wrong About the Tides: Galileo Attacks Kepler" (https://johnplaice.substack.com/p/sarpi-and-galileo-were-wrong-about).
What is "Sarpy-directed" cosmology? I don't know the term and couldn't find anything on it.