Re: Astrokook astronomers and Pluto: Never say die!

Many particpants at the conference may believe that they are getting a
seond chance to address the botched attempt to define a planet and
demote Pluto which happened a few years ago however many particpants
here should be capable of recognising it as a second chance to undo
the damage created hundreds of years ago.There are dozens of ways to
approach the matter with retrogrades and their proper resolution as
seen from an orbitally moving Earth being the core argument for
resetting things back to the way they were and applying commonsense to
new discoveries but on the wider stage there are dozens of wys to pick
and choose from.

A hundred years ago when the noveleistic junk of relativity
appeared,astronomers had a chance to review what Newton was doing
with these absolute/relative time and space 'definitions'.For
instance,over 100 years ago, Mach looked at Newton's 'absolute time'
and declared -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

He is,of course,refering to Newton's take on the Equation of Time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that
there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured." Newton

100 years on from Mach,almost every particpant here now knows that
Newton's expression is basically the difference between the natural
noon cycle and the 24 hour cycle where there is no external reference
for axial rotation through 360 degrees.The ins and outs of the
Equation of Time mean that the average 24 hour day is transfered to
the axial cycle as a constant,a convenience but not a direct
observations hence 24 hours/360 degrees.Newton,of course ,built on
Flamsteed's flawed reasoning based on a star returning 3 minutes 56
seconds earlier without fail within tha calendar system.


'Absolute space' is basically the false approach to retrogrades and
their resolution by displacing the correct approach using an observer
on an orbitally moving Earth rather than a hypothetical observer on
the Sun.Newton does this to promote his 'forces' agenda over direct
observations,specifically here -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion" Principia

I have news for all those would be astronomers ,it was always easy to
distinguish the true motion of planets from apparent motion once you
know that you are seeing them from an orbitally moving Earth -

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

A genuine person will then clue into what Newton is saying above by
fashioning a false approach to the resolution of retrogrades -

"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

Poor Mach did'nt stand a chance of understanding what Newton was doing
but I assure you that I do with 21st century imaging at hand.

That is just one example of dozens of approaches,not to show where
Newton,Flamsteed or Bradley got it wrong but to demonstrate to
dynamicists that it is time to revisit the whole issue of planetary
motions with 21st century eyes.Again,there may be two types of
particpants here,the ones who say nothing and the ones ,like
yourself,who say anything they want making you very much a follower of
Isaac.







On Aug 11, 12:22 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:30 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:00 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Astronomically, planets are bodies in orbit around stars.

Astronomically,planets are objects that move against the stellar
background as viewed from Earth where their motion,including ours,is
inferred around the central Sun by the resolution of their wandering/
retrograde motion.

If you wish to extract the retrograde part from planet you are going
to have to find an entire new word.

His definition attempts to include extrasolar planets, for one thing,
which your definition completely excludes.

But more germane to the main subject of your dispute with conventional
astronomy is this:

The planets in our Solar System are bodies that orbit around the Sun.
This motion indeed was historically inferred from resolving their
retrogade motion, but as the fact of this motion being inferred does
not make it any less real, why is it necessary to reference this in
the _definition_ of a planet?

Since Newton's "imaginary observer" standing on the Sun bothers you so
much, it seems you object to explaining a heliocentric Solar System
from the simplest viewpoint, the heliocentric viewpoint in which there
are no retrogades.

And it is in this viewpoint that the Earth rotates regularly once
every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. From whence we obtain a 24
hour day given the length of the year, and we obtain the Equation of
Time from the tilt of the Earth's axis and the elliptic nature of the
Earth's orbit.

But you steadfastly reject looking at the Solar System from the
outside, as one would look at an orrery, which is the viewpoint from
which the origin of apparent retrogades in the Earth overtaking the
slower outer planets is obvious, in which all the motions of the Solar
System bodies are easily separable, in which everything makes sense
immediately without tedious calculations and fatiguing complexity.

You admire the inferences of Copernicus, yet you refuse to see the
heliocentric Solar System in all its glory that is what he inferred.
And it is indeed what _he_ inferred; there is no need to wait for
Newton.

John Savard

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Refining orbital orientation
    ... >> The reacquisition of Aristotle in Europe as a byproduct of the Crusades ... Here is what Copernicus and Kepler resolved retrogrades and inferred ... assigning an annual orbital motion to the Earth.This is the only way to ... "The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Mercury approaches overtaking point
    ... The working principles for heliocentricity were affirmed yesterday from ... an orbitally moving Earth insofar as the orbital motion of Mercury was ... This takes care of the inner planets and how they overtake the ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: THALES eclipse vindicated/Neugebauer proved wrong!
    ... retrogrades which means they had already cut the motions of planets ... Ultimately epicycles are direct explanations for planetary motion based ... Here is the Copernican resolution for retrogrades - ... difference is that the heliocentrists seen the orbital motion of the ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Response to Dwight
    ... orbitally moving Earth overtaking the planets hence heliocentric ... reasoning for orbital motion leaving axial rotation to explain the ... I have nothing to gain by attacking anyone here but I am delighted to ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Newgrange and timekeeping
    ... original Copernican insight that the observed motion of the planets can ... be explained by an orbitally moving Earth. ... The Copernican notion was Ontologically less complicated and if one ...
    (soc.culture.irish)