Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

On 11 Oct, 13:54, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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".



A Christian tenet is that you cannot serve two masters and my poor
sentence and spelling is the result of busy external circumstance Plus
the weighty load of doing astronomy in a world that no longer
recognises atronomical methods and insights.It is not your ability to
dance around Newton's false view and resolution of retrogrades like an
idiot,it is the sheer silence behind not affirming the only
explanation that Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo knew,that we see
orbital motion of ourselves and the other planets from an orbitally
moving Earth -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

This nonsense of a hypothetical observer on the Sun should be swiftly
expunged from civilisation,instead there is a bunch of astrologers
behaving as if nothing is wrong.




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.


These guys here claim inheritance from Galileo but that is bringing
shame on Galileo and on the entire human race.To stay silent while you
try to attach the agenda of Newton and Flamsteed to the great
astronomers surpasses any attempt by creationists to impose their
agenda on natural phenomena.Your astrological framework on which you
hang your concepts is really that bad.




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

I am proud of my astronomical heritage,even that part where Galileo
can explicitly discern that people who have established false
correlations will become ill if you present conclusive evidence that
they are in error.

What the other guys here are proud of I do not know,they can't claim
to represent the heritage of Copernicus and Galileo insofar as I have
yet to see a single objection to the stupid approach of Newton to
retrogrades and their resolution -

" 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

Go pine for you telescopic equipment,many people in this era are
starving due to an imbalance in the climate affecting their crops or
where they are living due to severe meteorological events.I have
explicitly stated that the direction is not concerned about the junk
of Newton but the neccessary modification based on orbital orientation
change for the seasons and from there into climate.

The problem is not global climate,the problem,at present, is the
shocking level at which the 'experts' approach the topic.In one
stunning sequence of images,the application of lessons learned from
Uranus can be applied to the Earth,instead I have to argue over basic
astronomical principles with a guy who has severe astrological
convictions.Fair play to you John,at least you are openly protective
of Flamsteed/Newton even if these pair almost wrecked astronomical
methods and insights.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
    ... I use the phrase "conventional astronomy" to mean that ... I need to refer to the prevailing view in a simple way that everyone can ... yourself promoting the absolute/relative space of Newton or his false ... presented the plain words of Copernicus and others, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... can't see where you get anything from Copernicus, Kepler, or Galileo ... that makes Flamsteed and Newton wrong. ... Since it is being done simply to aid understanding, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Keplers celestial mechanics
    ... can simply present the reasoning of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo against the corrupt Newtonian resolution for retrogrades,it just happens to be one of those things that in order to justify the Newtonian conception for retrogrades you have to find Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo wrong in theirs. ... You attribute this to Copernicus. ... You attribute this to Newton. ... figured out that the Earth orbits the Sun by going outside and pointing to Mars (which is presently in retrograde and subsequently the Earth is overtaking the orbit of Mars in their respective circuits),let me see you use Newton's reasoning. ...
    (soc.history.science)
  • International Year Astronomy and Galileo
    ... To give Galileo his due,he did understand and promote the method which ... Copernicus used to extract the orbital motion of the Earth via ... In the spirit of this year which is meant to promote astronomy using ... magnification equipment. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: God/No God
    ... Both Copernicus and Galileo were astrologers ... Nope - Copernicus was not an astrologer. ... astrologers didn't believe in astrology, ... There is no indication Newton believed in astrology, ...
    (rec.music.gdead)