Re: Panis Quadragesimalis of Kepler

On Sep 3, 2:42 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Sep 3, 6:06 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.." Newton

This does not represent in the slightest a change from Copernicus,
Galileo, or Kepler.

You do not have a feel for retrogrades and how they are resolved and
that is the unfortunate part of all this.Modern imaging showing the
Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn should be enough for anyone -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

It leaves axial rotation to explain the daily cycle and from there
into the huge human achievement where clocks were kept in sync with
the axial cycle via the transfer of the equable 24 day to the axial
cycle as though it is 'constant'.

The absolute nightmare of being among people who knowingly stick with
a false Newtonian conception when it is possible to enjoy the actual
reasoning behind the Earth's axial and orbital motion.The tendency is
to say why are you doing this when the imaging is availible ?. Why
would a race destroy its own achievements because a few people made
mistakes in principle ?.

It would be a terrible thing if we were, indeed, doing such a thing.

But to "destroy our own achievements" is not what we are doing, it is
instead what we would do if we followed your advice.

Copernicus proposed that the Earth went around the Sun, instead of the
Sun going around the Earth.


Copernicus used the orbital motion of the Earth between Venus and
Mars to resolve the observed behavior of the other planets which left
axial rotation to explain the daily cycle,from that principle the
great correlation between the human dvised equable 24 hour day and
terrestrial longitudes was struck.


Kepler then gave an exact description to the motions of the planets.


The working principles for the Keplerian refinements are based on
orbital comparisons.


But it was then Newton who _completed_ the achievements they began.
With Copernicus' and Kepler's achievements only, it was still possible
to argue that heliocentric astronomy was simply an alternative
interpretation of the heavens; an amusing notion, but not sufficiently
compelling to be accepted against the testimony of Scripture.


When you look at the empirical agenda and how it obliterates the
working principles of Copernicus and Kepler and draws on a mutation
based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun to resolve the apparent
motions of the planets,you can see the dangers associated with losing
the correct Copernican/Keplerian perspective -

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of
that diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . "
KEPLER

Your system fails because it cannot account for orbital motion and
axial rotation simultaneously whereas Copernican reasoning allows the
axial cycle to emerge as a consequence of explaining how the orbital
motion of the Earth resolves retrogrades -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif







But Newton showed us - starting from the experimental method of
Galileo - _why_ the planets moved as Kepler said.

If you whirl a heavy thing in a circle around your hand, you need to
hold on to the string or rope that restrains it; Newton showed that
the Earth's gravity, acting by an inverse square law, pulling on the
Moon, keeps it in orbit around the Earth, and the Sun's gravity, also
acting by an inverse square law, keeps the planets in orbit around the
Sun.


You are repeating what you were taught long ago and it is wrong,not
from the point of view that the correlation between terrestrial
ballistics and orbital geometry is invalid but the manner and the
astrological framework into which the agenda is set.

It would be an endless task to explain the technical ins and outs
however let me generalise the situation,You have astrologers with
telescopes whoes only concern is a cloudy sky and who work off the
zodiacal Ra/Dec system.You have dynamicists ,beginning with Newton,who
built on the same constellationa; 'fixed stars' framework ,have an
enormous amount of observational data but cannot escape the framework
and in the background are the original astronomical working principles
which permit an escape from the celestial sphere framework.






The heavens were no longer just points of light upon the firmament.
The Moon was as real as a pebble you could hold in your hand, or the
Earth beneath your feet; it was a sphere of solid rock, behaving by
the same rules that rock follows on Earth.

This is an intellectual achievement that is rightly treasured by
Mankind.


You do not really believe that nonsense and unless there are genuinely
unintelligent people here,,I doubt anyone would believe it either.The
truth is that even the dynamicists were so sick of Newton;s clockwork
solution for planetary motion they did everything to escape it,they
thought they did early on the last century but all they did was make
it worse and become more entangled in zodiacal geometry at the core of
Newton's agenda .




And, incidentally, it also explains the tides.

I said Kepler gave the exact motions of the planets. That is not
_quite_ true. The Earth's sidereal, anomalistic, and tropical years
are not the same. The Moon's orbit is one where similar effects must
be considered - the movement of its nodes, the movement of its
perigee.

Perturbation theory enables us to account for these effects, and it
has done so to a superlative degree of accuracy. Only in the case of
the planet Mercury was there a discrepancy that could not be accounted
for. For a while, a planet, Vulcan, was theorized; perhaps an unseen
planet, closer to the Sun than Mercury, was influencing Mercury's
orbit. But in time the real explanation was found - that, close to the
Sun, the subtle effects of Einstein's General Relativity, due to the
bending of space-time by gravity, had become detectable.


Subtle effects indeed !,dynamicists have a chance to revist Keplerian
orbital geometry by taking into account the compound orbital motions
of the Earth.They have to escape Newton's idiosyncratic creation of
the AU via mean Sun/Earth distances and the 'fixed stars' and I
certainly hope they do for that is where the astrological framework
is comng from -

"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." Newton

Again,there is nothing like being able to view the Earth from space
and determine how Kepler's orbital geometry can be confirmed using
the Earth's axial/orbital motions and orientations but apparently you
wish to remain with an Earthbound Newton and his 'fixed stars'
conceptions.






But discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus *did* lead to a new planet -
Neptune.

And how are orbital perturbations calculated? Using the inverse square
law of gravity and the conservation of angular momentum. As given to
us by Newton.





It is the precise reason heliocentric astronomy replaced geocentric
astronomy, because it eliminated unnecessary and inexplicable
complications in the motions of the planets. What was obscure and
complicated became clear and simple.
The Panis Quadragesimalis of Kepler represents the orbital motions of
the Earth against that of Mars,it becomes easy to see how they
calculated the orbital period of Mars by using Earth days and lots of
other information -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler refering to diagram
on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

Removing the coils, and obtaining circular orbits - *around the Sun* -
leads to exactly the thing Newton said. You may dislike the phrasing,
by bringing in an additional imaginary observer, but these are just
different ways of saying the same thing.


The view and resolution of retrogrades by Newton is astronomically
invalid,it is not a matter of like or dislike.

The orbital motion of the Earth resolves the observed behavior of the
other planets leaving axial rotation to explain the daily cycle.You
either accept this or not as the only means to understand Copernican
and Keplerian working principles -

In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the forward
and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and smaller
than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in Mercury.
This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn than in
Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in Mercury.....
All these phenomena proceed from the same
cause, which is in the earth's motion. Copernicus De Revolutionibus.




Copernicus did not eliminate the retrogade loops from the viewpoint of
the Earth, because the inarguable fact is that the planets still
_appear_ to have retrogade motions!


You are now into distinctions between epicycles and equants while not
appreciating the main Copernican argument based on orbital
comparisons,if you did register the main argument you would enjoy the
Keplerian refinements based on evaluating epicycles or equants.It is
now easier to look down at the Earth from space and enjoy Keplerian
orbital geometry but it is also enjoyable looking out at the Earth
overtaking the outer planets in affirming Copernican reasoning.



What can I do or say ?,if an entire group of people who call
themselves astronomers cannot work it out with real time lapse
footage then it hardly matters what I say -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Maybe at this stage,the failure is not the ability to appreciate the
technical arguments for there is nothing difficult in seeing the Earth
overtaking the outer planets but something more fundamental with human
reasoning.Why would a group of people who know that they can spare
future generations the nonsense they were subjected to willingly
ignore the true astronomical heritage which can be discovered,not by
reading more,but by going outside and for a few moments give a thought
to the cycles they participate in.

Newton has not falsely explained these cycles, he has not played false
to their nature. In his theories, instead, the truths of Copernicus
and Kepler are developed to their full beauty and glory. This is not
something I surmise, this is something I _know_.

The truth about retrogades, therefore, as those images show, is not in
conflict with Newton; if you believe it is, you have misunderstood
Newton.


The judgements of a genuine investigator apply to this situation
tenfold -

"...deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the
hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope
to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." Gerrit Smith
Miller in 1915 on Piltdown Man

As an astronomer,and not a dynamicist,I would now say it is simply not
worth it rather than Newton was this or that.The volume of data
waiting to be used for climatological.geological and astronomical
structural purposes is just too great to maintain the celestial sphere
framework which exists at the core of Newton's agenda notwithstanding
his illegal use of astronomical insights by imposing idiosyncratic
methods to genuine working principles.

I speak for my people,the structural and timekeeping astronomers and
not against any single individual.








John Savard- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The periodic times argument of Kepler
    ... |> The creation of the AU by Newton through the so-called 'periodic ... |> times' argument of Kepler is unjustified,undignified and outright ... |> centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... |> apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the ... You're misreading Newton, you dolt. ... I generally support the peer review process and its ideals just as I am ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Absolute space/relative space
    ... Jupiter and Saturn over the course of a year shows the faster Earth ... Nobody ever said anything about jumping to the Sun to explain the ... " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ... Below Newton discussed *phenomema*. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the ... You're misreading Newton, you dolt. ... I generally support the peer review process and its ideals just as I am ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading