Re: Re-aligning astronomical principles


Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2005 12:51:59 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >To Joe
> >
> >If you excuse me but I just lost a few hours work due to a computer
> >hitch and recycling the whole thing again
>
> Sorry to hear that, I have heard the most popular graphical
> user interface requires quiite a bit of time.
>
> > for somebody who can see
> >Newton do no wrong or determine his mistake was trivial
>
> I am not impressed by Newtonian gravitation, and even
> though I have an interest in astronomy, the historical part is
> not important to me.
>
> >in departing
> >from the exquisite reasoning behind Keplerian/Copernican
> >heliocentricity is quite remarkable
>
> Have you seen this site, it seems to suggest you are not
> giving credit to the original thinkers on the subject;
>
> http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html
>
> >The whole point of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity is dropping the
> >stellar background reference in which the plotted motions of the
> >planets were made and substituting it with the annual orbital motion of
> >the Earth.I used the words of Galileo to present the exquisite
> >reasoning followed by Kepler and now I give you the words of Copernicus
> >in how apparent retrogrades are resolved,the heliocentric arrangement
> >devised,the axial and orbital motion of the Earth ascertained and much
> >more .
>
> Dropping it from theory, or observational astronomy?
>
> The celestial sphere is the map, and right ascension and
> declination are the coordinates, can you state where zero right
> ascension is?
>
> >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> >'The Symmetry of the Universe ' by Copernicus
> >
> > 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. Moreover, when Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars rise at sunset, they
> >are nearer to the earth than when they set in the evening or appear at
> >a later hour. But Mars in particular, when it shines all night, seems
> >to equal Jupiter in size, being distinguished only by its reddish
> >color. Yet in the other configurations it is found barely among the
> >stars of the second magnitude, being recognized by those who track it
> >with assiduous observations. All these phenomena proceed from the same
> >cause, which is in the earth's motion. "
>
> Well, at least I can't fault Copernicus for thinking of heliocentric
> cosmology, the size of the universe wasn't realized until the 1920s.
>
> >Determining that an observer on the Sun accounts for retrogrades is an
> >enormous error and in direct conflict with the writings of
> >Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo on the matter of the resolution of
> >retrogrades by direct perception.
>
> It wouldn't account for retrogrades, but they would not be
> seen from the sun, would they?
>
> >Moving further,the replacement sidereal astronomical format that
> >retained the 'fixed stars' in a heliocentric system destroys the works
> >of Copernicus and the refinements by Kepler and Roemer.
>
> I don't see how anything can destroy their work, my setting
> circles have worked ok.
> All inertial guidance and satellite systems use stars for reference,
> not because of anything Newton said or did, but because it is the only
> way they can get an accurate reference.
>
> >Now Joe,where the relationship between axial and orbital motions,either
> >seperate or combined ,are required for astronomical,geological and
> >climatological purposes,men in the 21st century are still stuck with an
> >astronomical mechanism designed by 17th century cataloguers for the
> >sole purpose of determining terrestial longitudes from a celestial
> >sphere .
>
> Well, even though I have used NGC references some,
> it was only a few days ago that I found out what "NGC" stands for.
> There is just too much information available, that is why
> specialization has increased to include almost everybody.
> I think maybe I am the only generalist left. :-)
>
> >Thes guys did not care what fudges they introduced toolder
> >exquisite principles to get what they needed and Newton followed them
> >in taking unethical steps to graft his ballistic agenda into planetary
> >heliocentric motion.
>
> I have always complained about using the Newtonian
> formula with too M's and an F in it, the small m cancels out on
> both sides. But I guess the F is useful to engineers.
>
> >No commissions or tribunals exist to not only handle the gross
> >misconduct that occured much less one that exists but also to do an
> >audit on foundational premises that are required for future avenues
> >related to astronomy,geology and climatology.
>
> There have been many people damaged by the actions
> of others, but blame cannot always be laid, stuff just happens.
>
> >"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [viasplanetarum
> >
> >apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially the task of
> >the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to dis-cover their true
> >and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the task of
> >contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circleand lines correct
> >images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the concern of
> >the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
>
> I don't understand, if the motion of the planets is viewed from
> the Earth, I don't know how it could be represented on paper as "true".
>
> >Newton thought he knew his audience and deliberately wrote in the most
> >obscure terms to cover his tracks,what he did not reckon on that his
> >disciples,of which you are one,
>
> I are not one, my ideas are definitely not Newtonian, even
> though Newtonian mechanics is about all I can manage.
>
> > had other ideas.Newton's agenda is clear
> >enough and can be handled technically but the later doctrines which led
> >to relativistic homocentricity are unanswerable because they are
> >designed that way. I do not doubt that there are sincere and genuine
> >people who recognise that something went badly wrong and they were
> >genuine enough to admit it -
> >
> >http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
>
> That didn't work for me, it did revert to this though;
>
> http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/ilej/
>
> >The emergence of the relativistic concept was a signal that the
> >artificial conceptions of Newton were best exploited by building a
> >bigger can of worms and today we inherit the worst part of that
> >tradition.
>
> I am sure there is something wrong today, the large number
> of people working on hypotheticals seems absurd, maybe it is time
> to split all of them up into groups and let them pick an alternate
> theory of their choice and work on it.
> But trained people may not know much except their discipline.
>
> >I alone forward the views of my astronomical ancestors both as a
> >pleasure and a curse.
>
> I don't think I want to base my life on the material in the
> Internet Library of Early Journals, but they should make very
> interesting reading.
>
> But my crazy ideas are sure to cause me more problems
> than I want, it even makes me upset that I can't just be a
> happy Newtonian.
> But I have too much interest in gravity to pay much
> attention to Newtonian concepts of Force. I don't know
> the exact things that Newton originated, and it is a surprise
> to learn of the writings of Aristarchus of Samos and Archimedes.
>
> Joe Fischer

The bulk of the reply to your response will have to wait the weekend.

Declination and right ascension are calendrically based and the basis
for Newton's sidereal framework that retained the stellar background
for heliocentric descriptions after Copernic and Kepler dropped them.

Sidereal descriptions are great if you wish to predict the next time
Mars is closest to the Earth but unworkable for concepts where the
accurate relationship betwen axial and orbital motions are required
such as astronomy,geology,climatology and related fields..I have
detailed how the sidereal format emerged and for what reasons so many
times before that I have learned my lesson why Copernicus and Kepler
never went back to explain epicycles but forged ahead with
heliocentricity.

In resolving retrogrades Copernicus isolated orbital motion,both of the
Earth from where the observations are made and processed and those of
the planets under consideration.The siderealists not only departed from
pure heliocentricity by retaining the stellar background as the
celestial sphere but wrecked even the validity of Ptolemy's geocentric
observations by attaching the framework to the calendar system.

The point of departure for any further investigation into celestial
phenomena and its relationship withh terrestial phenomena involves a
conceptual audit centering on the misconduct and fraud emerging from a
given era after one of the most productive spells in human
endeavor.Being politically saavy has always been a strong point of
Western culture and given the nature of the accomplishments by the
'contemplative astronomers' * such as Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer,the
cataloguers and the geometers managed to squeeze out their elite
brothers in deciding the course of astronomical methods.

I have no doubt that many have the seeds of contemplative astronomy
within themselves insofar as the benchmark for distinguishing the the
practical part of astronomy from contemplative astronomy is that the
former collects data against the stellar background ,at least in a
heliocentric system,while the latter drops the stellar reference and
works on deciphering the data geometrically by appreciating the size
and scale of those objects under consideration.So Joe,in order to
undetake the crucial and very neccessary conceptual audit in order to
restore a balance in this whole arena,the prime consideration must be
to re-align the resolution for retrogrades back to the original
Copernican/Keplerian perception of a direct perception from a faster
Earth taking an inner orbital ciruit to the slower outer planets -

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

No verification has come from anyone therefore I have to regard the
situation as remaining dire and in line with the Newtonian resolution
for retrogrades through an uneccessary and inappropriate observer on
the Sun -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct.." Newton

As long as that remains,heliocentricity and the exquisite reasoning
that led to it through dropping the stellar background and adopting the
orbital motion of the Earth in its place signals that this intellectual
holocaust remains.




* "To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [vias
planetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially
the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover

their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the
task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines
correct images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the
concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers"

Kepler 'Mysterium Cosmographicum'

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: relativistic protons
    ... is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions ... Optics 1704 Newton ... Ah,who am I kidding!Newton re-invented astronomy to suit his agenda ... Look sunshine,they no longer associate 'aether' with 'absolute space' ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Keplers celestial mechanics
    ... >> that there is one and only one way to infer heliocentricity through ... Newton retained the stellar background as remains the custom with those ... The observer is nowhere whereas in the Copernican resolution,the ... > and pre-Copernican astronomy being mis-treated. ...
    (soc.history.science)
  • Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?
    ... I think you have completely misunderstood what Newton meant. ... The Copernican reasoning behind the Earth's motions and the proper ... I am promoting Copernican heliocentricity and you are defending ... ,that before Copernicus ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
    ... I use the phrase "conventional astronomy" to mean that ... I need to refer to the prevailing view in a simple way that everyone can ... yourself promoting the absolute/relative space of Newton or his false ... both axial and orbital motions / orientations Not,I repeat Not to try ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
    ... I use the phrase "conventional astronomy" to mean that ... I need to refer to the prevailing view in a simple way that everyone can ... yourself promoting the absolute/relative space of Newton or his false ... both axial and orbital motions / orientations Not,I repeat Not to try ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)