Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

On Oct 10, 1:53 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
The variations in luminosity as the Earth approaches and overtakes a
planet can be seen in the text and by observation * ,as a follower of
the false approach by Newton using a hypothetical observer on the Sun
you cannot find these lovely arguments.

If one accepts the "simple annual motion of the Earth", then one
accepts that it is the Sun that is the body in the Solar System that
has no motion except the general motion of the Solar System as a
whole.

Does that not make that viewpoint, then, the proper viewpoint from
which to consider the motions of the Solar System, because that is the
viewpoint from which the complexities of the geocentric approach are
banished, and everything is made plain?


Galileo had much to say about your kind,the difference being that
unfortunately it is now almost the totally dominant viewpoint ,it is
crude,it is brutish and the contrapunctal opposite of all things
astronomical.Even with the text of Galileo before you

SALV. "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I
have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so
much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself."

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

You have establish the conclusion that retrogrades a resolved from the
standpoint of a hypothetical observer on the Sun when this is a false
conclusion and has no astronomical pedigree -


" 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

There is no exasperation that the text of Galileo goes the same way as
Huygens in timekeeping astronomy and Kepler and Copernicus in
structural astronomy,in the words of Galileo -

"On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however
ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--
if indeed it does not make them ill. " Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems,




It is unclear to me not merely what you object to, but how you come to
object to it. You seem to find the motions of the Solar System dull
and lifeless when the mathematical clutter of subtracting out and then
adding back in the motions of the Earth no longer has to be repeated
incessantly. I suppose for someone who appreciates the Solar System by
intuition, and is not doing the work with figures, that is a tenable
position. To working positional astronomers - it would be a bad joke.


You do not disgrace yourself as an astrologer for as far as you are
concerned it is a legitimate view.If you see a star return in 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds you automatically draw the conclusion that it
proves axial rotation is constant and build concepts on such infantile
reasoning .The core principles which clocks in sync with the axial
cycle arise directly from the point of view of an orbitally moving
Earth for diurnal rotation followed as a principle and still
further,the intricate adaption of the average 24 hour to the axial
cycles and terrestrial longitudes rely only on appreciating the
transfer of the average 24 hour cycle to a 'constant' axial cycle as a
principle rather than a direct observation.

I




Unfortunately Newton is one such case where astronomical insights were
bent using an idiosyncratic method to suit conclusions such as
terrestrial ballistics applied to structural astronomy. Again, Newton's
approach to retrogrades and his conclusion have no astronomical basis
and is destructive to the nth degree.

And yet the perturbation theories that let us predict with high
accuracy even the complex motions of the Moon rest directly on the
Moon moving according to terrestrial ballistics, modified by the
gravities of the other bodies in the Solar System, through Newton's
law of Universal Gravitation with its inverse square law.


When Newton's system works via the calendrical cycle or rather
justifying the axial and orbital motions of the Earth through a
365/366 day system you know straight away that your statement is
little more than indoctrination.



That which is productive of correct predictions about nature is the
likeliest to be based on a sound understanding of nature as it is,
even if the understanding has its limits.


You will predict that a star will return to a location in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds of a 24 hour day and then draw the conclusion that
axial rotation is constant.You have established this in your mind,as
part of the Flamsteed/Newton framework that you would become ill if
you had to imagine otherwise and it is otherwise.






This is an injustice like no other,an astrological framework overlayed
on heliocentric reasoning and even with actual contemporary imaging
that clearly demonstrates the reasoning understood by
Copernicus,Kepler ,Galileo,there is not the slightest sign of budging
from an ill-considered and worthless view of Newton -

The imaging in no way contradicts Newton, so it applies no force to
budge us away from him.

Astronomy is not all about magnification equipment it is more about
rediscovering the noble intellects that once graced the astronomical
stage and from that point of departure making new discoveries and
modifications with modern imaging and techniques.

I do not disagree with this, but it seems as though you have
discovered something in your study of those intellects that is not
there, which is why no one else sees it - just as too much
magnification led Percival Lowell to see canals on Mars.

John Savard


Agree or disagree,none of you appear to be astronomers to begin with
even if you don't mind attaching yourselves to the disciplines of
Copernicus Kepler and Galileo.You begin at a level far below the
Simplicio character,the trouble is that Galileo had to invent such a
character while I meet worse every single day here.

SAGR." I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its
premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should
have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a
conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No
good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent
that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous."

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

T





..


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thank You Anthony
    ... dynamic and incessant motions. ... But from the sun they are ... these planets do not pass through every elongation from ... astronomy since the beginning of the usenet and let them know that the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: New analysis puts dark matter back into elliptical galaxies (Forwarded)
    ... > I wonder if there's some confusion between the motions and the frames of ... > reference of those motions. ... solar system bodies move on ... In the galactic frame, both the Sun ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Re-aligning astronomical principles
    ... >>The whole point of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity is dropping the ... >>stellar background reference in which the plotted motions of the ... > not because of anything Newton said or did, but because it is the only ... >>contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circleand lines correct ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Empirical cult
    ... | are astronomy, ... entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, ... Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " KEPLER ... Earth which accounts for the observed motions of the planets seeming to ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Know your analemma from a hole in the ground
    ... it deserves.The days where empiricists could run amok with astronomy ... If there's no external reference, then how do you know it's rotating? ... There are two dual motions going on simultaneously with respect to the ... clearly,one is daily rotation through 360 degrees and the other is the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)