Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

oriel36 wrote:
When I said I was tired it only was due to poor sentence structure and
spelling errors,there is nothing whatsoever beyond that .

I am aware that German, rather than English, is your first language.
And, thus, occasionally there will be an un-idiomatic choice of words,
such as "contrapuntal opposite" when, I presume, you meant the
absolute opposite - as far from the other as the nadir is from the
zenith. That, idiomatically in English, is the "diametric opposite".

I have wondered if it is a language issue that has led you to see
something in Flamsteed and Newton that contradicts Galileo and
Copernicus; as I have often noted, it appears from the general
viewpoint that Newton only affirmed Copernicus and Kepler - adding
what Kepler sought, but failed to obtain, an explanation of the
observed celestial motions as a consequence of underlying physical
laws. Which was exactly what was needed for the unchallenged triumph
of Copernicanism. And the mechanical laws of Newton rest upon, and do
not at all contradict, the discoveries of Galileo.

I might also note in this connection that in my childhood, the first
book about astronomy that I read, which led me to an interest in these
matters, was translated from the German - it was the history of
astronomy "And There was Light" by Rudolf Thiel.

Of course, I somewhat disagree with his strong words for Ptolemy's use
of the equant! That was a very good approximation to Kepler's Laws for
low eccentricity, and it is unreasonable to expect better from the
ancients. Or, once they have found an accurate correspondence from
simple circular elements, to reject it merely because of the off-
center point. Thus, denouncing it as a "wretched capitulation" seemed
hyperbolic.

John Savard

.

Relevant Pages