Re: This is for Kepler
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Nov 2005 01:08:35 -0800
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2005 09:58:45 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >It is almost indecent to present this material in this forum but as the
> >material was so badly misinterpreted by Newton and his disciples
> >(existing and dead) perhaps contemporaries would genuinely like to get
> >out of the quagmire.
> >
> >http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf
> >
> >On page 86 is Kepler's 'Pretzel',astronomically it is second in
> >importance to the Copernican arrangement of planets.
>
> Gee, turn the calendar back 400 years, and maybe
> we will learn something new.
>
You are experiencing something new,the rediscovery and emergence of
Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity from the shroud of Newtonian
quasi-geocentricity,if you can't get it I assure you that others will.
The time lapse footage of the Saturn and Jupiter going into retrograde
against the stellar backhground translates into a direct perception of
the heliocentric faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit.The toys
in your classroom were just that,the Copernican experience is for men
who know what is happening when they look out on planetary motions.
> >It represents the geocentric plotting of the motions of Mars against
> >the stellar background and partially heliocentric as the distinct
> >retrograde loops approach the Earth's orbit.
>
> How many loops are there?
>
Childish and unanswerable like all that you do and think.The Keplerian
'Pretzel' representation is the most gorgeous astronomical
representation after the Copernican heliocentric arrangement of
planets,it must be sickening to know that behind it all you cannot
intepret it correctly for you have stuck yourself with a diseased
Newtonian mind and his quasi-geocentric concepts -
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Every time I see that passage it turns my stomach for it is the
beginning of the blustering and bluffing that has not ceased at the
expense of the great heliocentrists.
> >The misintepretation is to be found in all Newtonian conceptions
> >insofar as the partially heliocentric element does not reflect a
> >stationary Earth but an orbitally motion Earth.
>
> So Newton devised Newtonian gravitation to work well
> with his mechanics, without knowing the Earth is in orbit around
> the sun?
>
Newton was a peevish freak who cared little for the exquisite reasoning
behind heliocentricity and it shows in all that you do where the
Earth's motions are involved.
Heliocentric astronomy was already intricate before thwe empiricists
hijacked the machinary to promiote the 'scientific method' so you prove
yourselves to be little more than intellectual brutes when handling
principles that wither under brute reasoning.
The intelligwent man only need see the retrograde loops against the
stellar background and drop them in favor of the annual orbital motion
of the Earth as accounting for apparent retrogrades and infering
heliocentricity.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
If you feel the need to travel to the Sun to account for retrogrades
then you are nothing but a stupid Newtonain disciple.That is a fact.
> >For those who adore intricate representations to refer the motions of
> >Mars to a stationary Earth is an incredibly dumb thing to yet this is
> >exactly what happened.Newton imagines that the resolution for
> >retrogrades motions involves an observer on the Sun but every signle
> >heliocentrist - Copernicus,Kepler,Roemer,Galileo determined that
> >apparent retrogrades are resolved by direct observation .
> >
> >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> I thought the heliocentrist would imagine an observer on the sun.
>
Take Galileo's word that retrogrades are resolved by direct
perception,if you need to go framehopping then you are just a
brute,nothing more or nothing less.
"[Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]
Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars
also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in
Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth
overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion
being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time
in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles
are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions
appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them,
but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by
Copernicus . . .
You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
> >The faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit and therefore its
> >annual motion accounts for apparent retrogrades against the stellar
> >background and simultaneously infers heliocentricity.The heliocentrists
> >dropped the stellar background and refered all motions to the Earth's
> >orbital motion.
>
> What? The heliocentrists were geocentrists?
>
> Sounds like a conspiracy plot movie to me.
>
You are just dumb brutes in handling material where the motions and
orientations of the Earth are required.If you do not mark the
difference between the exquisite reasoning behind heliocentricity and
the dumb Newtonian maneuver then there is nothing I could or would do
about it.
I will however take satisfaction from explaining it to people who have
been assaulted by the exotic garbage coming from theorists.I will make
sure that you are as distinct a group as the creationists for how you
approach the wroks of the early heliocentrists such as
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
You will reap the rewards of placing a peevish tyrant like Newton and
his idiotic maneuvering as something of a human achievement when it is
much less so.What do you think,that you can argue against the
Copernican reasoning with pretensious arguments .
> >Newton,the stupid,stupid,stupid,dumb,stupid,silly numbskull decided
> >that retrogrades are resolved by jumping to the Sun when it is an
> >uneccessary and inappropriate maneuver.
>
> And fatal, also.
>
> >He not just destroys Copernican
> >heliocentricity,he shuts off the ability to used the Keplerian
> >refinement and mixes that motion with the Roemerian insight on finite
> >light speed .
>
> I guess he had a better telescope than all before him,
> I still prefer a long focal length Newtonian.
>
> >"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
> >nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
> >direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
> >little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
> >distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
> >areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
> >demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
> >help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
> >that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
>
> Wasn't Newton able to see more Jovian satellites than
> those before him?
>
> >Even with time lapse footage of apparent retrogrades of Jupiter and
> >Saturn before all of you and the resolution hinging on the faster
> >Earth taking an inner orbital circuit,you lack the choice of affirming
> >what Newton did not know and any person who is such a slave to
> >consensus cannot be much of a man.
>
> I think Newton knew, I really don't understand what it is
> you think Newton didn't know.
>
> All observations are still made essentially from Earth's orbit,
> but it is useful to be able to imagine planetary orbits from the sun.
>
> In 1935, my school room had a mechanical model of the
> solar system. It was not to scale, and the size of the sun and
> planets were not to scale, but it made it clear what the motions
> were, and they were obviously not geocentric.
>
> The orbit of the moon was misrepresented though, it
> appeared to move in a orbit that was sometimes convex toward
> the sun, but that was because of the scaling, it is impossible
> to have an accurate scale model.
>
> Joe Fischer
Talk all you will of the homocentric concept of relativity for it suits
my purposes,the real substance is back at Newton and his distinct
maneuvering.I now know that none of it is especially difficult and
especially to re-align the heliocentric principles back to their
original format through direct perceptions for the reolutions for
apparent retrogrades.
You enjoy yourself with the claustraphobic world of early 20th century
insanity,the poor buggers were only trying to escape the horrible
legacy of Newtonian maneuvering unfortunately they expanded it rather
than anything else.Conspiracy ?,No,just utter stupidity,greed
,pretension and a cancer to what human achievement is.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: This is for Kepler
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: This is for Kepler
- References:
- This is for Kepler
- From: oriel36
- This is for Kepler
- Prev by Date: Re: force
- Next by Date: Re: force
- Previous by thread: This is for Kepler
- Next by thread: Re: This is for Kepler
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
