Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry

On Sep 7, 4:23 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
The forward motion of the Sun may influence heliocentric
orbital geometry from that perspective which is why dynamicists should
be fighting tooth and nail to get out of the 'fixed stars'
astrological framework Newton locked them into.

They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
frame any time they need to.

John Savard

It is for dynamicists to decide whether to revist Keplerian orbital
geometries with an eye to other physical considerations such as the
'ice age' cycles from climatology and geology rather than be slaves
to the zodiacal framework which Newton built on.They are not free and
never will be free so long as that awful error created by Flamsteed
remains but for my part,it is not really my business what they do and
believe among themselves ,it is their problem to deal with.

I do mind that honest people can stay quiet on the matter of a basic
fact which created so many practical and astronomical uses .A star
returning in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds demonstrates the
incredible usefullness of the calendar system or the observational
convenience of the Ra/Dec system but nothing else and certainly not
justifying axial and orbital motion.Isolating axial rotation from
variations in orbital motion has never been done and you cannot do it
without first recognising how clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial
longitudes mesh as a stable system,that it is fairly easy to grasp is
what makes all this heartbreaking,that good people would choose to
ignore it and adopt an alternative view.

God forbid any of you had to bear the stress of trying to promote the
achievements of timekeeping and structural astronomers and discover
that nobody wants to hear what they have to say but that is what all
this has amounted to.Not one of you will click on the link showing
Huygens treatise and what can I do beyond that -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html



















.