Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

On Oct 8, 1:24 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.


There is no precedence for creating a fictional or hypothetical
observer on the Sun to account for apparent retorgrades -

" 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




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.


Once recognised that we see heliocentric orbital motion directly from
a moving Earth in an orbit between Venus and Mars it is intellectually
impossiible, approaching the level of insanity, to ever believe the
Sun around the Earth is a valid conception. -

"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." Newton

I have walked you through the entire setup where Newton misinterprets
the data arising from the diagram on page 86 by believing if you place
the Sun at the center,the retrograde loops disappear -

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

There is the horror of your absolute/relative space,the idosyncratic
vandalism of a genuine Keplerian insight which uses orbital
comparisons between the Earth and Mars -

"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








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?


These astrological traitors here know now there is no precedence
whatsoever for an idiosyncratic approach to and resolution of
retrogrades by Newton and let them be cursed for it.Building concepts
by introducing a zodiacal framework into heliocentric reasoning is the
complete antithesis of astronomy,its methods and its insights
extending to all facets of civilisation.Any society which allows its
own achievements to be destroyed for worthless conceptual junk is
hardly civilised but savage.

I told these magnification guys here they can keep their Ra/Dec system
as long as they do not use it to qualify axial and orbital motion of
the Earth or structural heliocentric reasoning but they seem intent
in casting their lot in with the astrological concepts of Flamsteed/
Newton.




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?


I look what you did with the analogy I have used for years and see you
throw it back at me as an assertion -

"A car moving on a traffic roundabout sees cars moving slowly on the
outer lanes ,as we are in the car travelling faster in an inner
lane,as we overtake the cars moving in the outer lanes,it appears that
the cars go backwards and then forwards again.This is just a common
judgement based on the fact that we are sharing a common axis on the
roundabout. "

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/7b2117cbf109c167



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.


Newton's statement is corrupt and silly and has no basis in
astronomical reasoning.The orbital motion of the Earth accounts for
the observed behavior of the outer planets leaving axial rotation to
explain the daily cycle.There is no other way -

" 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

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






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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have all the success in the world in turning people off
appreciating the astronomical tradition of Copernicus and Kepler and
especially in this era when it is so important to move astronomy into
climatological and geological disciplines.Even when there is a new
motion to work with,replacing the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial
tilt with a change of orbital orientation,there is still this horrible
silence.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

All it takes is a little effort to adjust for the orbital path of the
Earth to keep the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary from
pivoting off the Equator and allowing the images from Uranus to
demonstrate what is actually changing on Earth.

Your ' sidereal time' justification fior axial and orbital motion
keeps the Earth orbital face holding the same face to the Sun over an
annual orbit -

http://calgary.rasc.ca/radecl.htm


The modification for the explanation of the seasons far exceeds the
Keplerian modification for orbital geometries but unlike the Keplerian
era there appears to be no men of repute to handle the matter,there
are only semi-astrologers defending guys who created a contrived mess
in the late 17th century.

I have given a clear direction to my efforts in terms of the neccesary
modification which accurately brings astronomy in line with
climatological studies.I hold nobody accountable for the astrological
errors they inherited through indoctrination and I certainly do not
care who uses my analogies or my concepts to promote astronomy ,

That I admire your astrological conviction does not mean I have any
intention of dwelling with that vacuous intellectual level.It is a
means to keep the astronomical platform front and center and to keep
the Ra/Dec system as a mere convenience.






.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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)
  • Re: The great Western adaption
    ... take our meals by the Sun, ... It certainly won't harmonize with celestial sphere geometry, ... to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth. ... their motion in relation to the walls of that room. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Congratulations guys !
    ... the central Sun hence the useful 'restore point' when dealing with ... spoke of a "variable tilt" for the Earth, but I think he was only ... referring to an apparent geocentric motion there; ... The natural noon cycle represents a geometrical relation between the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The Ethos is Coming!
    ... You are not obliged to convince him, or to convince me, no. ... that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. ... orbital motion, your denial that 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)