Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:21 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
..
All you are doing now is trying to justify axial and orbital motion
using the calendar system via the return of a star to a location and
that is little more than a mixture of creationism and
astrology, again, it really is that bad.
..
You say this, but I cannot see it.
..
I know you cannot see it even though you are trying.When I showed you
the text of Huygens and how 24 hour clock noon is derived from the
natural unequal noon cycles you still cannot see what is wrong with
the fictional difference between a solar/sidereal day in terms of the
Earths motions -

Galileo believed what Copernicus proposed as the solution for
retrogrades seen from an orbitally moving Earth I but you do not
believe it ,prefing an alternative and false Newtonian view of
retrogrades and their resolution via a hypothetical observer -

'Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with'

" Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Galileo

In what you quote, the Earth moves. It moves more quickly than Mars,
Jupiter, and Saturn do - and it moves around the Sun.

Because the Sun takes 220,000 years to orbit the center of the galaxy,
in describing the motions of the Solar System, we neglect the motions
of the Sun just as we would neglect the motions of the Earth when
describing a game of billiards. We are not asserting, in a geocentric,
astrological, or creationist fashion that the Sun and stars do not
move.

Given the Earth moving around the Sun, what is more natural - once
people are accustomed to the idea that, yes, the Earth does move -
than to begin one's explanation with that which does not move, the
surroundings in which the movements of the Earth, Mars, and the other
planets take place? And so we begin with the Sun at the center - and
the stars, which cannot move around the Sun appreciably in the course
of a year, as they would need, at their vast distances, to move at an
impossible rate to do so?

One car overtakes another on a circular racetrack. Does that disprove
that the pavement stands still? Or, at least, since the pavement
*does* rest on a moving Earth, that it is simplest to understand the
moving cars by looking at both of them from a seemingly still vantage
point, as cars turn their wheels to move themselves in relation to the
ground beneath them, than from the viewpoint of someone within one of
the cars?

The ground is the proper starting point from which to isolate the
motion of each car; from one car, or from the Sun, or from Mars, other
motions are brought in and the problem becomes more complicated. All
Newton did was start his explanation of retrogades from the right
place to isolate the motions in the Solar System - in this, he changed
nothing from Kepler or Copernicus, he just made it plainer for people
who no longer disputed Copernicus.

You are mistaken,Flamsteed led the way and Newton followed him down a
very astrological path,a path so bad that I basically have to wreck
myself trying to point in the direction of correct astronomical
working methods.

I hope I am having some success in explaining to you why what you say
is hard for us to understand. Perhaps that can make your task easier.

John Savard

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why are moonrise durations uneven?
    ... the same path as the Sun will 2N weeks from now. ... where it appears that nobody really cares whether the Earth is moving ... motions of the Earth. ... is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • 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: Mercury approaches overtaking point
    ... "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... But from the sun they are ... principles of Copernicus and the later refinements.The problem is ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: The great Western adaption
    ... the annual orbital motion of the Earth John,in fact Newton's only ... take our meals by the Sun, ... or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry. ... version of the Earth's motions are required.Is that explicit enough ?. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The basic outlines using modern imaging
    ... a slower moving Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop. ... Taking advantage of telescopes and imaging to split the inner planets ... Would you have liked it better if Newton talked about motions relative ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)