Re: Center of galaxies

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: 17 Sep 2004 04:04:36 -0700

"Mike Hale" <Mikhale@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:<sWq2d.18046$yW6.3710@clgrps12>...
> Don't the outer arms of our galaxy actually revolve at a rate that does NOT
> support
> a strict Sun-planetary system in a way that would make Newton puke?

That is about as refreshing an answer as can be had.

All that Newtonian bull talk of the Earth around the Sun is the same
as the Sun around the Earth just tells you that reducing planetary
motion to terrestial ballistics is not such a good idea after all.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

The truth of the matter is that Keplerian motion and further into the
Milankovitch cycle or cyclical orbital variations from a less
elliptical to amore elliptical planetary orbit could not have been
explained until the late 1920's when the solar system's galactic
orbital motion was discovered in tandem with the galactic structure.

The influence of the solar system's galactic orbital motion on
heliocentric planetary motion is almost a given and especially a
slight cyclical deviation from a mean galactic orbital path which
conditions planetary orbits to be more circular as the solar system
moves towards an inner galactic path and more elliptical as it moves
towards a outer galactic orbital path.

Newtonian ballistics locks you into a geocentric/heliocentric orbital
equivalency with no way out ,must have been great in the 17th century
but certainly not in the 21st !.Newton would indeed puke but he would
be an exception for the vast majority have'nt a clue what he was up to
and swallow the hagliographical material wholesale i.e. the 'nearer
the gods may no man approach' type thing.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory
    ... the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it ... cooled, and became planets. ... than "impossible" is too benign a term for the fact that our Earth exists as ... It's a good thing our sun is in a single-star configuration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory
    ... the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it ... cooled, and became planets. ... than "impossible" is too benign a term for the fact that our Earth exists as ... It's a good thing our sun is in a single-star configuration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply
    ... > | the Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow) and you will ... > | the Sun. ... motion.You view the circumpolar motion of the stars in this light ... assumes axial rotation to be constant and equalises all the variables ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... images in motion to affirm what Kepler and Galileo knew. ... the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. ... sun, we arrive at an average of 24 hours. ... we can see motions of the planets that ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The great Western adaption
    ... appreciate the annual orbital motion of the Earth John,in fact Newton's ... take our meals by the Sun, ... or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)