Re: ? heliocentric vs geocentric models ?

On Jul 18, 11:40 pm, Charlie Siegrist
<none.act...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I find it rather extraordinary that a regular poster here (one who
apparently wants to be taken seriously) is given to dismissing both Brahe
and Newton's works, even to the extent of referring to Newton as "that
really stupiid (sic) man."

As far as I am concerned,a person stands or falls on the technical
arguments which support structural astronomical views and Newton's
view of retrogrades and their resolution is silly,stupid or whatever
other appropriate judgement can be attached to his view of
retrogrades .Contemporary imaging shows our planet overtaking the
outer planets in our common orbit around the central Sun,this being
the basis for the conclusion by Copernicus that the Earth orbits the
central Sun between Venus and Mars with axial rotation left to explain
the daily cycle -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif


If a person calling themselves an astronomer made the following
statement after looking at the time lapse footage above I would still
call them silly for the obvious reason that we see our motion
around the Sun directly due to our orbital motion and position with
respect to the other planets -

"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

It is not a question of whether Newton was stupid,it is a matter of
whether his view meshes with that of Copernicus and to a lesser
extent,those of Kepler and Galileo and actual imaging shows it does
not.In this respect,to justify Newton's view you then must find that
Copernicus is incorrect so it is not a judgement of personality but a
purely technical judgement.


 The idea that a geocentric theory can be
proposed, requiring however some very twisted math, is interesting as an
exercise, and I don't think doing so is of any harm.  It is very likely a
great learning experience, much like considering Copernicus' futile
effort to mathemetize a means for the planets' orbits to be circular.  
Because the predecessors got a few things wrong is no reason to discard
the greater good, and certainly no reason to call a great man like Isaac
Newton "stupiid."

Again,you are no better or worse than the detractor of Starlord,you try
to sound different but ultimately you  try to rob astronomy of its
magnificence and its dignity.Trying to invoke Tycho or the false
reasoning of Bradley just to protect the astrologically based concepts
of Newton cannot conceal the basic error but it soes reveal how
miserable you are as human beings.

You appear at first glance to be a very bitter person.  How's my
intuition?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ... everyone at the time could see retrograde motion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... When assembled into time lapse footage, the motions look like this - ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... When assembled into time lapse footage, the motions look like this - ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... When assembled into time lapse footage, the motions look like this - ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Stein against Newtonian physics, too?
    ... who said that "We don't know how planets stay in their orbits...a ... perfectly reasonable hypothesis is that there's an intelligent ... Newton believed that his theory of the solar system required a god, ... He considered this to be a reason to prefer his theory. ...
    (talk.origins)