What Copernicus actually did

gkell1

It may happen that the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the arguments for the Earth's daily and orbital motions will pass without notice and while there is no specific date when the world first saw the arguments for planetary dynamics,it appears to be around 1511 or 1512 in a small work called the 'Commentariolis' -

http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm

Point 7 is still the most dramatic of them all -

"The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth's. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens." Copernicus

Copernicus realized that the apparent backward motion of the planets is an illusion caused by the Earth's own orbital motion as it makes a circuit of the Sun and modern time lapse footage makes the brilliant conclusion all the more enjoyable -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Like cars traveling around a traffic island,the faster moving Earth overtaking the outer planets in a different orbital lane makes them appear to temporarily fall behind.

Unfortunately scientists don't follow this reasoning by Copernicus by adopting a different and flawed resolution for apparent retrogrades and perhaps if readers find that difficult to believe,I am afraid it is true.

Dr Pepper

Very interesting thanks! Any chance you could elaborate on the last line? What is this "different and flawed resolution for apparent retrogrades"? I do do find it difficult to believe that modern scientist use a more flawed system to explain the planets motion than Copernicus did 500 years ago!

gkell1

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Very interesting thanks! Any chance you could elaborate on the last line? What is this "different and flawed resolution for apparent retrogrades"? I do do find it difficult to believe that modern scientist use a more flawed system to explain the planets motion than Copernicus did 500 years ago!

I would prefer to add some supporting details before taking a look at what went astray with the resolution for retrogrades but these additional things are inclined to be as just as enjoyable as the main argument itself which show retrogrades to be an illusion caused by the Earth's own orbital motion.Looking at the time lapse footage once more of the nearer Jupiter and the further Saturn being overtaken by a faster moving Earth -

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

Galileo's favorite argument is something you can see apart from the apparent forward-backward motions,as the Earth approaches and overtakes the outer planets they become brighter just as the lights of an oncoming car increase in intensity and likewise the outer planets become brighter as the Earth closes the distance and they dim again as the distances between planets widen in our respective orbits.

The state of play before Copernicus proposed that the Earth moves and accounts for the observed behavior of the other planets was that the solar system was arranged around a stationary Earth based on how long it took the planets and the Sun to return to the same patch of stars,something you can see in the time lapse footage above as Jupiter and Saturn move at different speeds against the background stars.The geocentric astronomers believed that the Sun moved between Venus and Mars as it takes Venus 224 days to make a circuit of the stars,Mars takes 686 days and they reasoned,because the Earth's seasons take roughly 365 days,that the Sun moved between Venus and Mars by virtue that 365 days is between the period of 224 days for Venus and 686 days for Mars.In the only extended commentary from Copernicus and because it is crucial for understanding what went wrong later,in his own words -

"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. " Copernicus

So,what Copernicus actually did was swap the motion of the Sun between Venus and Mars with the motion of the Earth and used our orbital motion to resolve the illusion of retrogrades as the central argument to push through the dramatic change between a stationary Earth and a moving one.

Within 300 years,these arguments vanished and only now with the benefit of modern imaging can we piece together the original reasoning.Again,there is a good reason these delicate arguments were and remain rejected even though they are a joy to behold when allied with modern imaging.

rccaulfield

Not following exactly what your suggesting here- Copernicus didn't get it quite right is that it? Wasn't it erathosthenes(spelling) a few thousand years before who was the first real proposer of a heliocentric universe? Copernicus was the rediscoverer i think is how sagan put it!

gkell1

rccaulfield wrote: »

Not following exactly what your suggesting here- Copernicus didn't get it quite right is that it? Wasn't it erathosthenes(spelling) a few thousand years before who was the first real proposer of a heliocentric universe? Copernicus was the rediscoverer i think is how sagan put it!

No offence,I am not appealing to those who cannot follow the reasoning of Copernicus but rather those who can.There is a specific reason why the discovery of the Earth's motions is not taught in schools in any meaningful way although some people will find the reasoning behind the discovery both enjoyable and easy to understand with modern imaging and analogies,they may even be surprised that they haven't heard of these things before and there is a reason behind that also.I have indicated that the resolution for retrogrades became botched a few centuries after Copernicus but to comprehend what went wrong,readers would first have to understand what is correct,if you cannot follow this point then sorry.

I ask nothing of the reader only to affirm the same stance Galileo and Kepler had for the reasoning of Copernicus,this from Galileo -

" He [Copernicus] thus speaks of “sunrise” and “sunset,” of the “rising and setting” of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the ecliptic and of variations in the equinoctial points, of the mean motion and variations in motion of the sun, and so on. All these things really relate to the earth, but since we are fixed to the earth and consequently share in its every motion, we cannot discover them in the earth directly, and are obliged to refer them to the heavenly bodies in which they make their appearance to us. Hence we name them as if they took place where they appear to us to take place; and from this one may see how natural it is to accommodate things to our customary way of seeing them." Galileo

The reader simply affirms the main point for the Earth's orbital motion as it overtakes the other planets before moving on to consider how an awful distortion of this insight was introduced and for what purpose.From past experience,the tendency is to defend the distortion and ignore what the actual resolution for retrogrades is so although one reader has already found that there is no other way to view the matter as Copernicus understood it.If a few readers can comprehend the principle of the Earth's orbital motion using the time lapse footage then I may confidently move on to demonstrating what went wrong and the complicated reasons behind that -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

rccaulfield

gkell1 wrote: »

No offence,I am not appealing to those who cannot follow the reasoning of Copernicus but rather those who can.There is a specific reason why the discovery of the Earth's motions is not taught in schools in any meaningful way although some people will find the reasoning behind the discovery both enjoyable and easy to understand with modern imaging and analogies,they may even be surprised that they haven't heard of these things before and there is a reason behind that also.I have indicated that the resolution for retrogrades became botched a few centuries after Copernicus but to comprehend what went wrong,readers would first have to understand what is correct,if you cannot follow this point then sorry.

I ask nothing of the reader only to affirm the same stance Galileo and Kepler had for the reasoning of Copernicus,this from Galileo -

" He [Copernicus] thus speaks of “sunrise” and “sunset,” of the “rising and setting” of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the ecliptic and of variations in the equinoctial points, of the mean motion and variations in motion of the sun, and so on. All these things really relate to the earth, but since we are fixed to the earth and consequently share in its every motion, we cannot discover them in the earth directly, and are obliged to refer them to the heavenly bodies in which they make their appearance to us. Hence we name them as if they took place where they appear to us to take place; and from this one may see how natural it is to accommodate things to our customary way of seeing them." Galileo

The reader simply affirms the main point for the Earth's orbital motion as it overtakes the other planets before moving on to consider how an awful distortion of this insight was introduced and for what purpose.From past experience,the tendency is to defend the distortion and ignore what the actual resolution for retrogrades is so although one reader has already found that there is no other way to view the matter as Copernicus understood it.If a few readers can comprehend the principle of the Earth's orbital motion using the time lapse footage then I may confidently move on to demonstrating what went wrong and the complicated reasons behind that -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

No offence? Ha! how can i understand what your saying when your talking in riddles? Then starting a thread on the same topic as this using the bible suggests an agenda here. I asked for a summary of what you're saying, not an even longer babbling in fancy non-english. Speak like a human being. What is your point or do you have one?

gkell1

rccaulfield wrote: »

No offence? Ha! how can i understand what your saying when your talking in riddles?

In your own words,what do you see here and who resolved the apparent motions -

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

rccaulfield wrote: »

Then starting a thread on the same topic as this using the bible suggests an agenda here. I asked for a summary of what you're saying, not an even longer babbling in fancy non-english. Speak like a human being. What is your point or do you have one?

For readers who already understand what retrogrades are,it is possible to move on to how Kepler used the insight to propose that the Earth has a variable orbital speed and an elliptical orbital geometry by using the retrograde of Mars as a point of departure for these orbital refinements.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

The next astronomical representation is probably the most famous one outside the actual representation of the solar system structure of Copernicus and the chances are that readers have never seen it before.It is called the 'Panis Quadragesimalis' where Kepler represents what the motion of Mars looks like against the background constellations as the Earth overtakes it -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

The representation matches up with the sequence of images in the NASA website,at least it was the best Kepler could do in an era without the benefit of imaging that we now possess by explaining both retrogrades and the fact that each apparent pass of the Earth as it overtakes Mars is not the same in duration or that some passes are brighter than others (like May 2008),therefore strong clues that orbits are not circular -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth, entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

Should a reader wish to know how astronomers could tell how long it took another planet to orbit the Sun,in the case of Mars it is 686 days,they can see how it was done by comparing how many times it took Mars to complete the same circuit as the Earth.It does no harm to show readers how these people worked in an era before telescopes and clocks and how they were capable of making brilliant conclusions with only their reasoning abilities.If you can't follow the arguments then blame me but no need to complain as it is meant to be interesting and people should allow for my shortcomings just as I allow for reader's unfamiliarity with the issues.

Again,these lovely astronomical points disappeared by the beginning of the 18th century but it is better to comprehend the correct method and insights first before looking at how they jumped the tracks a few centuries later.

rccaulfield

gkell1 wrote: »

In your own words,what do you see here and who resolved the apparent motions -

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




For readers who already understand what retrogrades are,it is possible to move on to how Kepler used the insight to propose that the Earth has a variable orbital speed and an elliptical orbital geometry by using the retrograde of Mars as a point of departure for these orbital refinements.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

The next astronomical representation is probably the most famous one outside the actual representation of the solar system structure of Copernicus and the chances are that readers have never seen it before.It is called the 'Panis Quadragesimalis' where Kepler represents what the motion of Mars looks like against the background constellations as the Earth overtakes it -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

The representation matches up with the sequence of images in the NASA website,at least it was the best Kepler could do in an era without the benefit of imaging that we now possess by explaining both retrogrades and the fact that each apparent pass of the Earth as it overtakes Mars is not the same in duration or that some passes are brighter than others (like May 2008),therefore strong clues that orbits are not circular -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth, entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

Should a reader wish to know how astronomers could tell how long it took another planet to orbit the Sun,in the case of Mars it is 686 days,they can see how it was done by comparing how many times it took Mars to complete the same circuit as the Earth.It does no harm to show readers how these people worked in an era before telescopes and clocks and how they were capable of making brilliant conclusions with only their reasoning abilities.If you can't follow the arguments then blame me but no need to complain as it is meant to be interesting and people should allow for my shortcomings just as I allow for reader's unfamiliarity with the issues.

Again,these lovely astronomical points disappeared by the beginning of the 18th century but it is better to comprehend the correct method and insights first before looking at how they jumped the tracks a few centuries later.

Look apologies for loosing the head but if i'm putting out some info i feel is interesting and someone with an interest asks for an explanation of a certain point i'll try and rephrase it or something, not tell them there incapable of understanding and this is for people who can lol! That would make me seem like a pompous arsehole tbh!
But i appreciate you're building to a point. You mentioned you believe current scientists leading in the field of astronomy have gotten the retrograde movements of the planets wrong since Copernicus' time? Well thats an extraordinary claim and will require extraordinary evidence! In the picture i see the retrograde movement of 2 planets as we overtake them as usual and then they get smaller as we move away from them.

gkell1

rccaulfield wrote: »

But i appreciate you're building to a point. You mentioned you believe current scientists leading in the field of astronomy have gotten the retrograde movements of the planets wrong since Copernicus' time? Well thats an extraordinary claim and will require extraordinary evidence! In the picture i see the retrograde movement of 2 planets as we overtake them as usual and then they get smaller as we move away from them.

I am not building to a point but I may be building towards a fight,also, the flawed resolution for retrogrades happened in the late 1680's and not before it.

The error is serious enough to warrant the participation of at least a few more readers who have followed,at least up to now, the original line of reasoning from Copernicus to Kepler,not just retrogrades as an illusion caused by the Earth's own orbital motion but also the variations in brightening and dimming as the Earth overtakes Mars a number of times indicating that orbits are not circular as by proposed Kepler.There is nothing too drastic or too involved, however ,should interested readers get this far they will be in a position to withstand what is sure to be a defense of the dramatic errors which saw the original astronomical principles vanish .

It just takes a few more interested readers to get the ball rolling ,however, as far as I am concerned readers can just enjoy the original reasoning using modern imaging if the offer is not taken up.I am mindful that students are not taught how Copernicus figured out the Earth has an orbital motion around the Sun and a daily rotation but hopefully,with a little effort,this will change in future as not only did the work of Copernicus and Kepler go into a deep freeze but also the writings from Galileo commenting on observations that we now have through time lapse footage of Jupiter,Saturn and Mars -

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


"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." Galileo 1632, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

Beeker

I have been following this thread aswell and would also like to understand the point. Where have scientists gone wrong? The retrograde motion of the planets is well known and understood by anyone with an interest, it is also easily explained even to children, so I would like this topic to move forward to wherever it is going.

gkell1

Beeker wrote: »

I have been following this thread aswell and would also like to understand the point..

May I remind you that what I am doing represents 20 years work notwithstanding I hold myself responsible for presenting the care astronomers since antiquity had observed the celestial arena leading to the discovery of planetary dynamics and while modern imaging makes most of the reasoning easy to follow ,the insights themselves are just as fresh and satisfying as they were 500 years ago when they first appeared.

The distortions introduced in the late 17th century have blocked the original discoveries and although you may be impatient to move on ,before dealing with what went wrong,it is necessary to put the competing ideologies in historical and technical context otherwise it would descend fairly quickly into a shouting match.As far as I can tell it seems that readers have understood the main points just fine even if they are only encountering them for the first time so it is possible to move on to the wider picture.

Beeker wrote: »

Where have scientists gone wrong? The retrograde motion of the planets is well known and understood by anyone with an interest, it is also easily explained even to children, so I would like this topic to move forward to wherever it is going.

To comprehend what went wrong requires some historical context and while I have tried to avoid putting personal perspectives into historical events,it is possible to present the issue in broad brush strokes known to everyone but more focused on the relevant material here.

When Copernicus set down the arguments for daily and orbital motions of the Earth in 1512 it was just 20 years after the New World was discovered ,by the time Kepler refined the orbital geometry of the planets in the early 1600's the insular world of Western Europe was almost gone as the maritime nations explored the unknown world.The mechanical world that really took off in the era of Da Vinci started to impact itself just as the astronomical insights were reaching new heights and by the era of Galileo,the emergence of telescopes and clocks were adding to a new facet of astronomy.Today it may seem like the magnification exercise represents astronomy itself but even for the popularizer of telescopes like Galileo,these tools only aid interpretative astronomy and he said as much -

."... 0 Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been for you to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear an
experiment (Telescope).
SALV. Yes, but how much less would his sublime intellect be celebrated among the learned! For as I said before, we may see that with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict" Galileo

Not long after the discovery of the Earth's motions,a new proposal emerged and as far as it is known,the first time it was set down as a principle was through Gemma Frisius in a very long title which binds together astronomy,inventions and the discovery of the new worlds.This is not a digression but something that is crucial for understanding what went so badly wrong so if it looks like a huge leap in a different direction then I apologize but there is no easy way to hold together large strands of history without having to make compromises. -

" it is with the help of these clocks and the following methods that longitude is found. ... observe exactly the time at the place from which we are making our journey. ... When we have completed a journey ... wait until the hand of our clock exactly touches the point of an hour and, at the same moment by means of an astrolabe... find out the time of the place we now find ourselves. ... In this way I would be able to find the longitude of places, even if I was dragged off unawares across a thousand miles.... it must be a very finely made clock which does not vary with change of air." Gemma Frisius ' On the Principles of Astronomy and Cosmography, with Instruction for the Use of Globes, and Information on the World and on Islands and Other Places Recently Discovered'

It should not be a matter of holding the reader's attention to get to a specific point but rather to understand why we believe what we do today in many aspects of existence,not just science.A reader may get a feel that the great interpretative sciences that came along with Copernicus,Kepler and to a lesser extent Galileo were eclipsed by the mechanical sciences which give you the first hints of the problem I have been indicating at in previous responses as the idea of a clockwork solar system really took hold in the late 17th century and subsequently the great astronomical insights vanished until modern imaging intervened and allows us to revisit the original insights with the benefit of imaging.

Bear with me,it gets interesting once you know what you are looking at from a technical standpoint with as much historical background as is necessary.

Beeker

gkell1 wrote: »

Bear with me,it gets interesting once you know what you are looking at from a technical standpoint with as much historical background as is necessary.

Please go on!

gkell1

Beeker wrote: »

Please go on!

Have you or anyone else any objections to either the technical or historical issues so far and especially the technical details where Kepler's representation of the motions of the Earth and Mars matches up with modern imaging ? -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

(Moving the cursor over the image gives the dates of the position of Mars taken against the background constellations as it passes through the field of those stars during that period)

I had hoped for the involvement of a few more readers needed to discuss the obvious error that follows in the next response but what is not so obvious and is pretty complicated is why the error exists in the first place and even though it is impossible to make sense of retrogrades any other way than Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo understood these things,the erroneous resolution is now dominant and has been since it emerged.

quad_red

wtf?

The English in this thread reads like a reasonably good translation from babelfish - the words are individually correct but something has seems to have been lost in translation.

Beeker

gkell1 wrote: »

Have you or anyone else any objections to either the technical or historical issues so far and especially the technical details where Kepler's representation of the motions of the Earth and Mars matches up with modern imaging ? -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

No objections to the best of my understanding, however I am not a Astronomer/scientists/engineer, just an interested chap:)

gkell1

Beeker wrote: »

No objections to the best of my understanding, however I am not a Astronomer/scientists/engineer, just an interested chap:)

It is an even playing field and all it requires is an interest and enjoyment in the material.

If you understand the reasoning of Copernicus and Kepler then you will have no problem spotting the false conclusion -

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

Remember what you know from retrogrades as an illusion due to the Earth's own orbital motion therefore no hypothetical observer on the Sun is required to resolve them.The reason for that false view of Newton is very complicated yet it loses all the fine points you would have seen in the images as the Earth approaches and overtakes the other planets and especially how planets brighten and dim during apparent retrogrades.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/retrogrademars_tezel_big.jpg

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

I had hoped for the involvement of a few more readers needed to discuss the obvious error that follows in the next response but what is not so obvious and is pretty complicated is why the error exists in the first place and even though it is impossible to make sense of retrogrades any other way than Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo understood these things,the erroneous resolution is now dominant and has been since it emerged.

How about you just post the fundamental flaw that's endemic in today's science, then start going into the technical and historical details when you're challenged? Retrograde motion is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. Posting that it is wrong but not saying why is pretty pointless

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

How about you just post the fundamental flaw that's endemic in today's science, then start going into the technical and historical details when you're challenged? Retrograde motion is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. Posting that it is wrong but not saying why is pretty pointless

I well expect the opposition from followers of Newton,after all,the resolution for retrogrades as an illusion is particularly straightforward as long as you know you are moving in the same direction around the Sun as the other planets hence no stupid resolution based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun is required,once more in case you missed it -

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

The reason I have asked for readers who can follow the reasoning of Copernicus and Kepler rather than those who cannot and, spending more time than I should on supporting texts from Galileo and Kepler, is supporters of Newton don't like been told the late 17th century guy mangled the main argument for the Earth's orbital motion .It doesn't matter why Newton trumped up a contrived alternative resolution for retrogrades and there are indeed complicated reasons behind why he did,the fact is he got it badly wrong and modern imaging is a testament to that.

Nice try all the same but I am only interested in hearing from people who can tell the difference between what is correct and what is not.

Dr Pepper

This is getting frustrating! I don't see anything wrong with the Newton quote. The man was one of the most intelligent people ever to have walked on the Earth. It baffles me to try and conceive how he figured out the things he did using the information available. What are you saying he got wrong?

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

I well expect the opposition from followers of Newton,after all,the resolution for retrogrades as an illusion is particularly straightforward as long as you know you are moving in the same direction around the Sun as the other planets hence no stupid resolution based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun is required,once more in case you missed it -

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

What part of that quote is wrong? Your argument seems to consist of saying "he used an unnecessary example, therefore all of modern science is wrong". What part of Newton's position are you saying was wrong? I can follow Kepler's, Copernicus' and Galileo's reasoning, where did they conflict with Newton's?

stevoslice

gkell1 wrote: »

I had hoped for the involvement of a few more readers needed to discuss the obvious error that follows in the next response but what is not so obvious and is pretty complicated is why the error exists in the first place and even though it is impossible to make sense of retrogrades any other way than Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo understood these things,the erroneous resolution is now dominant and has been since it emerged.

You sound more like you want to preach to people than to have a debate with them, what exactly is your problem with the current orbits of planets, as we understand them. Whenever the retrogade motion of the planets gets mentioned, i always remember brian cox's explanation from wonders of the solar system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbynKfNfHk4

gkell1

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Very interesting thanks! Any chance you could elaborate on the last line? What is this "different and flawed resolution for apparent retrogrades"? I do do find it difficult to believe that modern scientist use a more flawed system to explain the planets motion than Copernicus did 500 years ago!

Newton was particularly inept at dealing with the great Western insight which shows retrogrades to be an illusion seen from a moving Earth.Perhaps a perceptive reader can simply explain to you why no hypothetical observer on the Sun is required but I would be eager to move on to the issues where the phony view creates havoc with basic astronomical facts.In the other posts I attached the sentence that scientists dispute things such as the explanation for why twilights vary with latitude,how long it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees,how many times it takes to turn in a year and many more things that would be of interest to readers.If you dispute what modern imaging dictates,and this is what you are doing by supporting Newton's phony resolution for retrogrades,it is unlikely you will affirm other basic astronomical facts such as one day/night cycle corresponds to 24 hours of rotation (scientists dispute this one too !).

I specifically requested that readers pay attention to Kepler's representation of the motion of Mars seen from a moving Earth because Isaac's followers still think this is a geocentric view and if you placed the Sun in the center,the retrogrades disappear (the Wiki caption contains the geocentric reference).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

I would be interested in hearing from readers who can put that representation in context of modern imaging of the same thing rather than crawling around the floor with balls of wool -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/retrogrademars_tezel_big.jpg

I need men and not boys,after all,things get even worse when the reasons behind the phony view start to emerge.So,it is an appeal to common sense before moving on,if you can't face that Newton's perspective is inept then be my guest and stick with it,it just means you cannot tell the difference between an illusion caused by the Earth's motion and a phony resolution based on a hypothetical observer thereby losing all the fine points of Kepler's work as the Earth overtakes Mars and the other planets.

Dr Pepper

Hang on a second.. Are you some kind of religious nut who still thinks that the Earth is at the centre of the universe? If so, the Christianity forum is probably a better place to discuss wacky, unfounded, long-disproved theories!

The Hill Billy

I have to say that I'm a tad bewildered by this thread. What exactly is the point of the thread?

I mean no offence to the OP, but I can't get a grasp on what is to be discussed & what participation (if any) the OP is looking for from other forum members.

OP - Are you just presenting information for information's sake or is there a point to the topic that you would like our input on (this being a discussion forum & all that)?





I'm going to report my own post as I may be over-stepping the mark in asking the above.

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

Newton was particularly inept at dealing with the great Western insight which shows retrogrades to be an illusion seen from a moving Earth.Perhaps a perceptive reader can simply explain to you why no hypothetical observer on the Sun is required

Yes, the hypothetical observer is not required. So what? Whether it's required or not or just used to make the explanation simpler is completely irrelevant. What part of his position is wrong?

gkell1 wrote: »

I specifically requested that readers pay attention to Kepler's representation of the motion of Mars seen from a moving Earth because Isaac's followers still think this is a geocentric view and if you placed the Sun in the center,the retrogrades disappear (the Wiki caption contains the geocentric reference).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

Are you saying the retrogrades don't disappear for an observer on the sun?

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, the hypothetical observer is not required. So what? Whether it's required or not or just used to make the explanation simpler is completely irrelevant. What part of his position is wrong?

So remind readers what Newton's achievement was so we can inspect it and put it in context of the original astronomical insights .I have been through this many times and make allowances for readers who are unfamiliar with the issues but should they wish to understand today's world and why 'predictions' have become such a big deal presently,they will discover that it began with the distortion of the main argument for planetary motions.

Readers have already seen the outlines of what Kepler and Copernicus achieved,now made easier through using modern imaging, rather than speculating a resolution from the Sun and they will discover many more things with just a little effort and courage.In your own words and in your own time,explain what Newton did in inheriting the insights of those great astronomers,already he is off to a bad start by mangling retrograde resolution.

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

So remind readers what Newton's achievement was so we can inspect it and put it in context of the original astronomical insights .I have been through this many times and make allowances for readers who are unfamiliar with the issues but should they wish to understand today's world and why 'predictions' have become such a big deal presently,they will discover that it began with the distortion of the main argument for planetary motions.

If you've been through this many times, how come you can't simply state your position? Instead, apart from vague suggestions that we're all being kept in the dark for "reasons", all you've said is that Newton is 'wrong' and Kepler etc is right, even though Newton's position in no way contradicts Kepler's.

Or maybe it does and you're going to use your experience of this argument to actually state your position?

Beeker

Still waiting to see where all this is going? If this turns out to be about pesudoscience, astrology, gods etc, tell us now! because this is a forum about Astronomy and Space, we have no interest in fairytales here.
Please get to the point!!

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

If you've been through this many times, how come you can't simply state your position? Instead, apart from vague suggestions that we're all being kept in the dark for "reasons", all you've said is that Newton is 'wrong' and Kepler etc is right, even though Newton's position in no way contradicts Kepler's.

Or maybe it does and you're going to use your experience of this argument to actually state your position?

There is nothing worse than the Irish being afraid of late 17th century Royal Society tyranny after all it takes nothing but common sense to distinguish between retrogrades as an illusion caused by the Earth's motion in contrast to Newton's attempt to insert a hypothetical observer on the Sun thereby attempting to diminish the work of the great astronomers for his own opportunistic purposes -

"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." Newton,Principia

The great astronomical insights are easily enough to comprehend with modern time lapse footage and they are most certainly within the observation of our senses,that is what makes the reasoning as thrilling as it was 500 years ago -

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." Kepler, 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum

There are plenty of cowards who will affirm what retrogrades are until it suits them not to (that is why I delayed the introduction of the error),we have seen aspects of that behavior in other areas of Irish society for far too long and considering that we now inherit one of the oldest astronomical traditions in the world,it is our responsibility to promote that tradition in a honest way regardless of how many paychecks rely on upholding Royal Society junk.

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

There are plenty of cowards who will affirm what retrogrades are until it suits them not to (that is why I delayed the introduction of the error),we have seen aspects of that behavior in other areas of Irish society for far too long and considering that we now inherit one of the oldest astronomical traditions in the world,it is our responsibility to promote that tradition in a honest way regardless of how many paychecks rely on upholding Royal Society junk.

Newton said retrogrades are an illusion. Kepler said retrogrades are an illusion. So did Copernicus. And Galileo. His 'error', as you put it, seems to consist of him saying "it's difficult to work out the exact details", even though it wasn't actually that hard

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

Newton said retrogrades are an illusion. Kepler said retrogrades are an illusion. So did Copernicus. And Galileo. His 'error', as you put it, seems to consist of him saying "it's difficult to work out the exact details", even though it wasn't actually that hard

Readers will probably hear a lot of fuss about relative/absolute time,space and motion as it is attributed to Newton without knowing what these things mean but I assure you I do.

To demonstrate to readers who are not familiar with his agenda how bad Newton's distortions became ,do you know what the following statement applies to and what era insofar as it is mixed up with Newton's definitions in which celestial observations play a large part ? -

"Scientific people know very well that Time is only a kind of Space."

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

To demonstrate how bad Newton's distortions became to readers who are not familiar with his agenda,can you affirm what the following statement applies to and what era insofar as it is mixed up with Newton's definitions in which celestial observations play a large part ? -

"Scientific people know very well that Time is only a kind of Space."

A quote from a fiction book that attempts to condense an incredibly complicated area of physics into one sentence? I think I'll pass

gkell1 wrote: »

Readers will probably hear a lot of fuss about relative/absolute time,space and motion as it is attributed to Newton without knowing what these things mean but I assure you I do.

None of which have anything to do with your OP. In case you've forgotten:

gkell1 wrote: »

Unfortunately scientists don't follow this reasoning by Copernicus by adopting a different and flawed resolution for apparent retrogrades and perhaps if readers find that difficult to believe,I am afraid it is true.

So for the umpteenth time: How is Newton's position on apparent retrograde motion flawed? Not: "how did he attempt to suggest it was his idea?", and not "why are the Irish apparently beholden to 17th Century scientists?", make the central point of your argument

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

A quote from a fiction book that attempts to condense an incredibly complicated area of physics into one sentence? I think I'll pass

A book that could be found in any science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 -

‘Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time."

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

The fact is that they couldn't make sense of Newton's absolute/relative time, space and motion 100 years ago and adopted the precepts of a 19th century science fiction novel and a belief in time travel.If you can get the wider population to believe humans can control time,you can probably get them to believe we can control global temperatures so this is all relevant.

Newton's absolute/relative space and motion is nothing more than the idea that observations of the planets seen from Earth represent relative space and motion while modeling those motions requires an absolute space and motion hence his idiosyncratic take on 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

The fact is that all planetary motions are direct as seen from a moving Earth as long as the observer knows that retrogrades are an illusion and then begin to organize the solar system structure using this knowledge.

28064212 wrote: »

None of which have anything to do with your OP. In case you've forgotten:

So for the umpteenth time: How is Newton's position on apparent retrograde motion flawed? Not: "how did he attempt to suggest it was his idea?", and not "why are the Irish apparently beholden to 17th Century scientists?", make the central point of your argument

You have to disprove that retrogrades are not an illusion due to the Earth's orbital motion in order to insert an alternative hypothetical observer on the Sun.The distinction between Sun,moon and planets in the geocentric system was that the Sun and moon displayed direct motions while the planets 'wandered' -

" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus

The chain of reasoning which leads to the Earth's daily and orbital motions is so careful and almost delicate yet when some crude powdered wig in the late 17th century wades in with his hypothetical observer on the Sun ,it shows complete disregard for the reasoning employed to place the Sun in a central position and the Earth in a 365 day orbit between the 224 days of Venus and the 686 days of Mars.

The Hill Billy

That still doesn't explain what you are on about. What/who's chain of reasoning are you talking about now?

I would respectfully suggest that you clearly state what you believe to be the truth & then back up your argument with whatever proof or references that you have. Your posting style is very confusing & condescending to some regular posters.

gkell1

Hill Billy wrote: »

That still doesn't explain what you are on about. What/who's chain of reasoning are you talking about now?

I would respectfully suggest that you clearly state what you believe to be the truth & then back up your argument with whatever proof or references that you have. Your posting style is very confusing & condescending to some regular posters.

Simple astronomical question - how many times does the Earth rotate in a year ?.

It should not evoke any reaction other than 365 1/4 rotations and 365 1/4 days as a balance with one orbital circuit . Feb 29th day/night cycle is also a 24 hour rotation and picks up the 1/4 day and rotation omitted each non-leap year hence 365 days and rotations in a non leap year and 366 day/night cycles and rotations in a leap year.

The chances are that you will give an alternative answer to the amount of rotations in a year and again,this has everything to do with what went wrong.If you are going to ban me do it after you answer the question,the most basic in all astronomy.

Newton and his strain of Royal Society empiricism has such a stranglehold on science,these are the guys who ,for all the hype that surrounds them,couldn't make the necessary calendar correction which denominational Christianity had instituted in 1582 as it took them 150 years to make the correction.likewise the 'Piltdown man' hoax which took them 40 years to correct.The assault visited on Western sciences and especially astronomy so that Isaac could force through his agenda that planetary dynamics could be reduced to experimental sciences by misusing the calendar based Ra/Dec system is a sight to behold and while most of these technical things are beyond readers here they ultimately represent a slavery of sorts.There is an intransigence in the character in Royal Society empiricism that has all the same hallmarks that many here would know through our shared histories,an unwillingness to bend or adapt even when common sense intervenes.

As far as I am concerned ,my efforts are finished here.

Is anyone else confused?

I would love to know what you think the length of the year is.

gkell1

King Mob wrote: »

Is anyone else confused?

I would love to know what you think the length of the year is.

Scientists believe there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

'What is the rotation period of the Earth?'
"The rotation period of the Earth is about 4 minutes (or about 1/365th of the day) short of 24 hours. A full year contains about 365.25 days, but 366.25 rotations of the Earth."

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Lcalend.htm

I assure you,you will experience 365 day/nights and 24 hour rotations from Mar 1st 2010 until Feb 28th 2011 and 366 day/nights and 366 rotations from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012.

The Royal society empiricists screwed up with the averaging process which maintains a steady progression of 24 hour days as a substitute for steady rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour and came up with this nonsensical junk of 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

The arithmetical progression of 1461 days and rotations across a calendar system represents 1 year of 365 1/4 days and rotations as a close enough fit with the actual cycle of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.It means if readers believe in 366 1/4 rotations in a year,they lose the correspondence between 24 hours of rotation and one day/night cycle and I am not descending to that abysmal level to explain where it is wrong.

The retrograde resolution was a litmus test as to how the more complicated material would be handled,mainly because readers can actually see what the resolution is.If they can't find anything wrong with Newton's approach then I don't belong here.

The actual principles where accurate clocks were developed on the basis of 4 minutes for each degree of rotation (not that 'sidereal time' junk) can be easily understood through the man who created those clocks and in opposition to the Royal Society empiricists who hated him -

" The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon
the following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360
equal parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are
called Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round
its own axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period,
each of those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively
opposite to the Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day
at each of those degrees and it must follow, that from the time any
one of those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just
four minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that
quantity; so that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it
will be noon with us four minutes the later, and for every degree
Eastward four minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any
greater or less quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place
where we are, can be ascertained by well known and easy observations
of the Sun if visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten
degrees high until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon
until he is only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at
any time when such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the
same moment what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our
Longitude is clearly discovered." John Harrison

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA90&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false

Newton's agenda requires that you believe the Earth does not turn once in 24 hours and turns 366 1/4 times in a year and people who believe that can believe anything.Good luck to you all.

gkell1

gkell1 wrote: »

Scientists believe there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

'What is the rotation period of the Earth?'
"The rotation period of the Earth is about 4 minutes (or about 1/365th of the day) short of 24 hours. A full year contains about 365.25 days, but 366.25 rotations of the Earth."

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Lcalend.htm

I assure you,you will experience 365 day/nights and 24 hour rotations from Mar 1st 2010 until Feb 28th 2011 and 366 day/nights and 366 rotations from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012.

The Royal society empiricists screwed up with the averaging process which maintains a steady progression of 24 hour days as a substitute for steady rotation once in 24 hours and came up with this nonsensical junk of 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

The arithmetical progression of 1461 days and rotations across a calendar system represents 1 year of 365 1/4 days and rotations as a close enough fit with the actual cycle of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.It means if readers believe in 366 1/4 rotations in a year,they lose the correspondence between 24 hours of rotation and one day/night cycle and I am not descending to that abysmal level to explain where it is wrong.

The retrograde resolution was a litmus test as to how the more complicated material would be handled,mainly because readers can actually see what the resolution is.If they can't find anything wrong with Newton's approach then I don't belong here.

What the hell are you yammering on about?

The Hill Billy

gkell1 wrote: »

If you are going to ban me do it after you answer the question,the most basic in all astronomy.

I will address the above line only.

1. I am not a mod of this forum. I am a regular reader & occasional poster here. It is not for me to say who gets banned or not, however I am certainly interested in the discussions here & their value & relevance to me & other posters. The structure of the argument as it has been put forward & 'expanded on' in this thread is disjointed & very difficult to follow & participate.

2. You appear to demand that I answer a question before you are willing to provide further details of your argument. Posts like that tend to kill threads as nobody likes to be treated like a schoolchild.

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

"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

The fact is that all planetary motions are direct as seen from a moving Earth as long as the observer knows that retrogrades are an illusion and then begin to organize the solar system structure using this knowledge.

Except it's quite clear from the context that that when he said direct he meant it as the opposite of retrograde, namely that they sometimes travel in one direction, sometimes in another

gkell1 wrote: »

The chain of reasoning which leads to the Earth's daily and orbital motions is so careful and almost delicate yet when some crude powdered wig in the late 17th century wades in with his hypothetical observer on the Sun ,it shows complete disregard for the reasoning employed to place the Sun in a central position and the Earth in a 365 day orbit between the 224 days of Venus and the 686 days of Mars.

No it doesn't. It's a different viewpoint for the exact same situation.

gkell1 wrote: »

The retrograde resolution was a litmus test as to how the more complicated material would be handled,mainly because readers can actually see what the resolution is.If they can't find anything wrong with Newton's approach then I don't belong here.

Except you've failed your own litmus test. If you want to start a discussion on the number of rotations in the year go ahead. If you want to start a discussion on the evil Royal Society which wants to keep the working man down, go ahead and do that too. Hell, you can even start one on the Piltdown man if you really want. Boards is a pretty big place. What you haven't explained, or come close to explaining is why Newton's description of apparent retrograde motion is wrong

gkell1

Hill Billy wrote: »

I will address the above line only.

1. I am not a mod of this forum. I am a regular reader & occasional poster here. It is not for me to say who gets banned or not, however I am certainly interested in the discussions here & their value & relevance to me & other posters. The structure of the argument as it has been put forward & 'expanded on' in this thread is disjointed & very difficult to follow & participate.

2. You appear to demand that I answer a question before you are willing to provide further details of your argument. Posts like that tend to kill threads as nobody likes to be treated like a schoolchild.

Do you understand that 24 hours of rotation is responsible for one day/night cycle ?.

If you get that far you will have discovered something new because followers of Newton don't accept that fact and I am not going to go chasing after followers of that nasty empirical cult be it ever so dominant.

We live on an island with an incredibly rich astronomical heritage and I will continue to promote that heritage ,just not here.

gkell1

gkell1 wrote: »

Do you understand that 24 hours of rotation is responsible for one day/night cycle ?.

If you get that far you will have discovered something new because followers of Newton don't accept that fact and I am not going to go chasing after followers of that nasty empirical cult be it ever so dominant.

We live on an island with an incredibly rich astronomical heritage and I will continue to promote that heritage ,just not here.

Where did you get the insane idea that "the followers of Newton" don't understand the rotation of the Earth?

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

rccaulfield

gkell1 wrote: »

A book that could be found in any science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 -

‘Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time."

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

The fact is that they couldn't make sense of Newton's absolute/relative time, space and motion 100 years ago and adopted the precepts of a 19th century science fiction novel and a belief in time travel.If you can get the wider population to believe humans can control time,you can probably get them to believe we can control global temperatures so this is all relevant.

.

And there it is folks its a conspiracy theory(about 3 wrapped up in one thread) Wrong forum -the tinfoil hat brigade have their own forum!
1-Are you insinuating Einstein came up with General relativity from the above storybook quote? Are you for real?
2-Is this thread going to end with you claiming the earth is at the centre of the solar system?
3-have you a religious agenda here as your other bible thread on here smacks of it?
4- are you EVER going to answer anyones questions or are you going to continue posting your already typed out thread in disjointed jargon?

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

Except it's quite clear from the context that that when he said direct he meant it as the opposite of retrograde, namely that they sometimes travel in one direction, sometimes in another

Listen to yourself for goodness sake,what part of retrogrades as an illusion do you not understand,everything travels in one direction with the Earth orbiting faster than Mars in the following sequence of images -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/retrogrademars_tezel_big.jpg

I know from dealing with the empirical cult for many years that you just can't absorb the reasoning which quarantines Newton's hypothetical observer on the Sun resolution as both false and stupid,it has less to do with the application of common sense to the issue,for there is nothing remotely difficult about affirming that the Earth is overtaking Mars in those images as it is about you defending Newton at all costs.

" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo

28064212 wrote: »

Except you've failed your own litmus test. If you want to start a discussion on the number of rotations in the year go ahead. If you want to start a discussion on the evil Royal Society which wants to keep the working man down, go ahead and do that too. Hell, you can even start one on the Piltdown man if you really want. Boards is a pretty big place. What you haven't explained, or come close to explaining is why Newton's description of apparent retrograde motion is wrong

You cannot have a discussion about the number of rotations in a year unless you have a severe problem with arithmetic as all it requires in the ability to count the 1461 day/night cycles from March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 made up of 24 hour rotations.That 1461 days and rotations across 4 years is a near enough fit with 365 1/4 days and rotations per orbital cycle,that Newton's agenda attempts to force through a belief in 366 1/4 rotations a year would represent qn intellectual nadir of sorts where the link between science and intelligence becomes a myth.

What Newton tried to do was fit the Earth's orbital motion into right ascension,basically tried to fit the Earth's orbital motion into the calendar system and that is a tragedy.I would have tried earlier on today to bring the invention of clocks into the picture slowly but seemingly I lost the audience and it no longer can be helped.

It was always going to be an appeal to people with common sense rather than trying to convince people who do not know how to adapt and alter ,that is not an insult directed at you but just the way things are.

rccaulfield

gkell1 wrote: »

something Galileo knew all too well in commenting on that type of personality -

" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo


.

Gallileo sounds like he's talking about well ANYTHING there why can't you see that?(Religious dogma was what he was speaking about was my impression but thats subjective as you're whole argument is!) oh and BUMP for the ignored questions-(I'LL LEAVE OUT QUESTION 2 as i'm sure thats not the case.)

1-Are you insinuating Einstein came up with General relativity from the above storybook quote? Are you for real?
2-
3-have you a religious agenda here as your other bible thread on here smacks of it?
4- are you EVER going to answer anyones questions or are you going to continue posting your already typed out thread in disjointed jargon?

The Hill Billy

gkell1 wrote:

We live on an island with an incredibly rich astronomical heritage and I will continue to promote that heritage ,just not here.

The Earl of Rosse would be spinning in his grave if he knew that the likes of this thread was the continuation of his & others' heritage.

gkell1

Hill Billy wrote: »

I will address the above line only.

1. I am not a mod of this forum. I am a regular reader & occasional poster here. It is not for me to say who gets banned or not, however I am certainly interested in the discussions here & their value & relevance to me & other posters. The structure of the argument as it has been put forward & 'expanded on' in this thread is disjointed & very difficult to follow & participate.

2. You appear to demand that I answer a question before you are willing to provide further details of your argument. Posts like that tend to kill threads as nobody likes to be treated like a schoolchild.

If you really wanted to be given the runaround and treated like a child,I suggest Newton's treatment of Kepler's periodic times argument where he attempts to make the Ra/Dec framework a common denominator between absolute/relative space and motion -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
"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.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun" Newton

http://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm

The chances of finding somebody who understands what is going on there is remote but I certainly do and it has nothing to do with Kepler or astronomical insights as it has to do with scientific fraud,you may not know nor care but I certainly do.

There is now mob rule going on in this thread and time to finish up.

28064212

gkell1 wrote: »

Listen to yourself for goodness sake,what part of retrogrades as an illusion do you not understand,everything travels in one direction with the Earth orbiting faster than Mars in the following sequence of images -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/retrogrademars_tezel_big.jpg

And? You keep saying (in between your conspiracy theories and side issues that have nothing to do with the point at hand) that's somehow incompatible with what Newton said. It's not. Do you have any quotes from him that do contradict it?

gkell1 wrote: »

I know from dealing with the empirical cult for many years that you just can't absorb the reasoning which quarantines Newton's hypothetical observer on the Sun resolution as both false and stupid,it has less to do with the application of common sense to the issue,for there is nothing remotely difficult about affirming that the Earth is overtaking Mars in those images as it is about you defending Newton at all costs.It is an affliction of the mind in other words,something Galileo knew all too well in commenting on that type of personality -

" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo

Why do you keep quoting people from before Newton was alive? Your problem is (apparently) with Newton

gkell1 wrote: »

I would have tried earlier on today to bring the invention of clocks into the picture.

Why? Clocks have nothing to do with apparent retrograde motion. This thread is about one thing. Your argument so far has consisted of saying Newton was wrong about that, and as proof, you give examples of other areas you say he was wrong. Why can you not simply say why Newton was wrong about retrograde motion? I could understand if you just had a flawed argument, or even an accurate argument, but you don't, you have no argument whatsoever. Your position so far is akin to saying "Obama is a Muslim" "Why?" "His healthcare plan is flawed" "..."

The Hill Billy

Please do not confuse several posters asking similar questions for clarification & voicing similar concerns about the nature of your arguments in this thread with "mob rule".

None of the responses have addressed the questions asked with any degree of clarity. Hence the many & repeated requests from other posters. We wish to engage in meaningful discussion & not drive anyone away, but it's a two way thing.

gkell1

28064212 wrote: »

And? You keep saying (in between your conspiracy theories and side issues that have nothing to do with the point at hand) that's somehow incompatible with what Newton said. It's not. Do you have any quotes from him that do contradict it?

This is the Earth overtaking Mars -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/retrogrademars_tezel_big.jpg

This is a stupid and boring distortion of the same images and what they represent -


"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

Planetary motions are always seen direct from the Earth,apparent retrogrades are simply a statement of it from a moving Earth.It is not rocket science but it is the jewel of Western astronomical thought.Newton's hypothetical observer on the Sun is for talentless numbskulls,to consider people who adhere to his idiosyncratic view is an insult to astronomers stretching back to remote antiquity.

Ah,you are slaves to Royal Society empiricism and can't be helped,probably a worse form of slavery than a physical one.I was looking for people who genuinely enjoy what Copernicus achieved,not how Isaac mangled it,so it is not an astronomical heritage you are following but a nasty,destructive cult.

gkell1

gkell1 wrote: »

This is the Earth overtaking Mars -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/retrogrademars_tezel_big.jpg

This is a stupid and boring distortion of the same images and what they represent -


"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

Planetary motions are always seen direct from the Earth,apparent retrogrades are simply a statement of it from a moving Earth.It is not rocket science but it is the jewel of Western astronomical thought.Newton's hypothetical observer on the Sun is for talentless numbskulls,to consider people who adhere to his idiosyncratic view is an insult to astronomers stretching back to remote antiquity.

Ah,you are slaves to Royal Society empiricism and can't be helped,probably a worse form of slavery than a physical one.I was looking for people who genuinely enjoy what Copernicus achieved,not how Isaac mangled it,so it is not an astronomical heritage you are following but a nasty,destructive cult.

What cult? How are they "nasty and destructive"?
What in the name of god is your point?