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 -

You poor people never rose to geocentric levels and this is why it is
a joy to read Copernicus and the other heliocentric astronomers -

'.THE ORDER OF THE HEAVENLY SPHERES ' Chapter 10

"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. "De REVOLUTIONIBUS,Copernicus

Aall these big institutions and all the brilliant technological
advances and still astronomy remains in the gutter because really
silly people have no sense of dignity,discipline or the wits to spot
that something went badly wrong.It went wrong here -

"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

Without the periodic times argument based on observing the orbital
period of Venus and Mars it becomes imposssible to resolve retrogrades
by the only way known,observing from an orbitally moving Earth.Even
the geocentric astronomers woorked with the so-called 'periodic times'
argument but a totally ignorant person will find something in Newton's
statement to be correct when it has no value,geocentric,heliocentric
or bottom line.

You along with many others here are no better or worse than Starlord's
detractor,every bit as disgusting and without a shred of decency,just
a perverse satisfaction in doing something wrong because you can do
it.





They attributed to their geocentric counterparts a dignity that none
of you here have.What you do have is a lousy,ill-disciplined
meandering luxury of sayoing whatever you want even as the great texts
of astronomy expose you as vacuous.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ? heliocentric vs geocentric models ?
    ... and on the other hand greater in Venus than in ... the planets, as given by Kepler, also shows that the heliocentric ... But the stars are indeed the argument that totally eliminates the ... the sun, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Possible planetary occulations
    ... Can any pair of those planets be ... Any pair can be involved in an occultation. ... Therefore Venus ... When Mercury and Venus is involved in a mutual occultation, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Holidays, continued, with ouch
    ... So Venus must be ... Kant's theory that the sun and the planets condensed, ... Planets were created by a grazing collision between two stars. ... Of course dinosaurs didn't appear until Earth was 95% of its present ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Mercury Rising
    ... window and spotted Venus. ... I knew from reading saa that Mercury ought ... Two planets shared the same low powered binocular field. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Is this right?
    ... >>The way I view this is that distances between all the planets in our solar ... >>orbits too so any statement of distance has to be for a given date. ... >>> Light from Venus should reach us before light from Mercury? ... > from Mercury, at least, should have changed by now or will soon do. ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
Quantcast