Re: ? heliocentric vs geocentric models ?

On Jul 14, 5:05 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:23 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 13, 9:27 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It is the stars, and only the stars, which prove that the heliocentric
system is to be preferred to the geocentric!

I have no doubt that the rest truly believe this,any perversion other
than the correct way.I could probably draw attention to the phrase  -
"in no other way" in the following excerpt but then I have to remoind
myself who I am dealing with. -

'The Symmetry of the Universe '
  "  In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry
of the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the
motion of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other
way. For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the
forward and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and
smaller than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in
Mercury. This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
Mercury."  Copernicus

It is true that the relationship between the periods and distances of
the planets, as given by Kepler, also shows that the heliocentric
arrangement is clearly the simpler one, so you do have a point.

But the stars are indeed the argument that totally eliminates the
geocentric view, because a contrived scheme to justify the geocentric
view can be constructed - only when it is remembered that the stars
are not mere points of light, but distant suns can the true absurdity
of having them revolve around the Earth or the Sun at immense speeds,
rather than about one of their own number just as well, deal the final
refutation to any contrived geocentric theory.

Other things strongly favor the heliocentric, but the stars prove it
absolutely.

John Savard- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

None of you rise to the level of the geocentric astronomers and that
is why it is a joy toi read Copernicus and his accurate reflection of
geocentric reasoning before he introduces the Earth's motions between
Venus and Mars with axial rotation explaining the daily cycle -

'THE ORDER OF THE HEAVENLY SPHERES '

"Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars.
This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted
to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the
revolutions. Their principle assumes that of objects moving equally
fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in
Euclid's Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time
because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the
nearest to the earth. The highest planet, on the other hand, is
Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below
it is Jupiter, followed by Mars.

With regard to Venus and Mercury, however, differences of opinion are
found. For, these planets do not pass through every elongation from
the sun, as the other planets do. Hence Venus and Mercury are located
above the sun by some authorities, like Plato's Timaeus [38 D], but
below the sun by others, like Ptolemy [Syntaxis, IX, 1] and many of
the modems. Al-Bitruji places Venus above the sun, and Mercury below
it. "

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html

You do not know the indignity of presenting the original texts of the
great astronomers to such a disgusting bunch of people who get a
perverse satisfaction in ignoring the actual and original
documentation such as the one above.A few posts ago you wanted the
stars to affirm planetary orbital heliocentricity and I presented
the orginal words of Copernicus using the retrograde argument and you
can come back with more of the same.

What is it,are you anfd the people you represent disgusting or
insane ? because that is what this is beginning to anount to.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Any germans would like to help write a book?
    ... that powers the sun. ... When making a model of the universe we can say that the stars, ... I believe that there is other life out there, on other planets. ... mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, ...
    (soc.culture.german)
  • Re: ? heliocentric vs geocentric models ?
    ... and on the other hand greater in Venus than in ... Mercury." ... the planets, as given by Kepler, also shows that the heliocentric ... the sun, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Astronomer announces shortlist of stellar candidates for habitable worlds (Forwarded)
    ... American Association for the Advancement of Science ... habitable zones around nearby stars. ... undertake the demanding job of trying to detect Earth-like planets in ... than 1.5 times the mass of our Sun don't tend to live long enough to ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Worlds with Double Sunsets Common.
    ... disks as ones with only a single star. ... Astronomers have theorized that planets could form with little trouble ... The majority of bright stars like our Sun have at least one stellar ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Astronomer announces shortlist of stellar candidates for habitable worlds (Forwarded)
    ... In the search for life on other worlds, scientists can listen for radio transmissions from stellar neighborhoods where intelligent civilizations might lurk or they can try to actually spot planets like our own in habitable zones around nearby stars. ... Turnbull announced her shortlist of so-called "habstars" at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis. ... stars more than 1.5 times the mass of our Sun don't tend to live long enough to produce habitable zones. ...
    (sci.astro)