How to destroy an astronomical insight

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » How to destroy an astronomical insight

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

oriel36

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:18 am

Guest

One of the nicer refinements of Copernican reasoning is a ratio that
Kepler noticed between the length of an orbital period around the Sun
and its distance from the Sun

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the
sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

That should be easy enough for anyone to understand until the
empiricists got hold of it -

"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." Newton

It will be quite a struggle to get the geological effects of
rotational dynamics up and running with numbskulls who are just as
eagerly intent to deny any involvement out of incapacity,
incompetence or just plain dullness of mind.Their mathematical jargon
kills any discussion that would normally be carried out between adults
and while events did conspire to produce the worst possible
conditions,the clarity of Kepler and the utter nonsense of Newton
being an example,it cannot be left to chance that the situation will
resolve itself.

Those who want to remain with convection cells are committed to a
stationary Earth and that is the one conclusion that eists.

Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:42 pm

On 5 mar, 20:18, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Very good point Oriel and it indicates again that the most obtuse &
abscond answer, the more people are in awe & respect of the author.
Kepler 's clarity compared to Newton 's conceited definition

Someone said the Stuart Einstein 's contribution to science was not to
make people think but on the contrary prevent them to think so
incomprehensible & so incoherent were his theories ... and none was
daring ( or so few ) questioning such idiocies.

Ses`quip´li`cate
a. 1. (Math.) Subduplicate of the triplicate; - a term applied to
ratios; thus, a and a´ are in the sesquiplicate ratio of b and b´,
when a is to a´ as the square root of the cube of b is to the square
root of the cube of b´, or a:a´::?b3:?b´3.
The periodic times of the planets are in the sesquiplicate ratio of
their mean distances.
- Sir I. Newton

Newton clearly indicates there the source of his inspiration. By the
way Newton had no mathematical right ot apply the observation of
banging billard balls ot planets distants of millions of km ... and
make that deduction of the mass of the Sun ( 300 times the mass of
the Earth ) This is just a most crude syllogism

I agree with you that only a global understanding a the Solar system
can explain things on that planet which is not a cultural exception
indeed ( in despite of all those religious sects who pretend the
contrary )

By the way, what is your opinion on the Bradley-Fresnel ' s
experiment & its apparent infirmation by Michelson ?

Best regards

jpturcaud

oriel36

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:30 pm

Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 942

On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Quote:

On 5 mar, 20:18, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the nicer refinements of Copernican reasoning is a ratio that
Kepler noticed between the length of an orbital period around the Sun
and its distance from the Sun

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the
sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

That should be easy enough for anyone to understand until the
empiricists got hold of it -

"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." Newton

It will be quite a struggle to get the geological effects of
rotational dynamics up and running with numbskulls who are just as
eagerly intent to deny any involvement out of incapacity,
incompetence or just plain dullness of mind.Their mathematical jargon
kills any discussion that would normally be carried out between adults
and while events did conspire to produce the worst possible
conditions,the clarity of Kepler and the utter nonsense of Newton
being an example,it cannot be left to chance that the situation will
resolve itself.

Those who want to remain with convection cells are committed to a
stationary Earth and that is the one conclusion that eists.

Very good point Oriel and it indicates again that the most obtuse &
abscond answer, the more people are in awe & respect of the author.
Kepler 's clarity compared to Newton 's conceited definition

You actually missed the point,there is no astronomical justification
for this -

"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." Newton

It might impress people who know no better but Newton's version
amounts to meaningless junk dressed up to look like Kepler's original
insight on planetary orbital periods and their distances from the Sun.

Try the main Copernican argument for the Earth's orbital motion based
on accounting for the observed behaior of the outer
planets.Nowadays,with modern imaging it is fairly easy to see how it
was done back in 1543 -

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

A straightforward view from an orbitally moving Earth overtaking the
outer planets in our common orbit around the central Sun leaving axial
rotation to explain the daily cycle, and understood perfectly by
Kepler and Galileo.Guess what !,Isaac could not understand the main
argument for the Earth's orbital motion and created a hypothetical
observer on the Sun to account for the observed behavior of the
planets -

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

Once an idiosyncratic view like Newton's becomes dominant,you can
forget astronomy or the presence of genuine men in any arena that
requires intuitve intelligence such as evolutionary geology.It is
amazing to see the main Western astronomical achievement vandalised so
openly and with such little objection notwithstanding the inability to
woirk with the Earth's motions for geological and astronomical
purposes.

Quote:

Someone said the Stuart Einstein 's contribution to science was not to
make people think but on the contrary prevent them to think so
incomprehensible & so incoherent were his theories ... and none was
daring ( or so few ) questioning such idiocies.

Ses`quip´li`cate
a. 1. (Math.) Subduplicate of the triplicate; - a term applied to
ratios; thus, a and a´ are in the sesquiplicate ratio of b and b´,
when a is to a´ as the square root of the cube of b is to the square
root of the cube of b´, or a:a´::?b3:?b´3.
The periodic times of the planets are in the sesquiplicate ratio of
their mean distances.
- Sir I. Newton

Newton clearly indicates there the source of his inspiration. By the
way Newton had no mathematical right ot apply the observation of
banging billard balls ot planets distants of millions of km ... and
make that deduction of the mass of the Sun ( 300 times the mass of
the Earth ) This is just a most crude syllogism

I agree with you that only a global understanding a the Solar system
can explain things on that planet which is not a cultural exception
indeed ( in despite of all those religious sects who pretend the
contrary )

By the way, what is your opinion on the Bradley-Fresnel ' s
experiment & its apparent infirmation by Michelson ?

Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should be
enough for anybody at the moment.

Quote:

Best regards

jpturcaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:50 pm

On 6 mar, 06:30, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*> On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
*>
*> Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
*> Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
*> introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
*> reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
*> Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should
be
*> enough for anybody at the moment.
*>

May be I missed your point, could you please reword it ?

...especially considering your previous quote above. Indeed the period
of the Earth is longer than Venus & Mercury, and those two planets
overtake us. Why do you see the actual images of Jupiter & Saturn
being overtaken by the Earth questionning the Heliocentrism view of
our system ?
Do you question the validity of the Bradley Fresnel experiment as
well ?
I will be pleased to read you.

By the way your geo-dynamic approach of Equatorial bulge genesis is
correct, although you are not noticing that such re-equilibrium when
it occurs following a major Cosmic Collision leads to major again then
faults-forming such as the Fjords of the Scandinavian craton & the
Colorado gorges by ex ( amongst numerous other occurences )

Thank you for the APOD ( Astronomical Picture Of the Day) link.

Best jp

As well thank you for your link to

oriel36

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:11 pm

Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 942

On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Quote:

On 6 mar, 06:30, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*> On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
*
*> Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
*> Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
*> introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
*> reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
*> Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should
be
*> enough for anybody at the moment.
*

May be I missed your point, could you please reword it ?

...especially considering your previous quote above. Indeed the period
of the Earth is longer than Venus & Mercury, and those two planets
overtake us. Why do you see the actual images of Jupiter & Saturn
being overtaken by the Earth questionning the Heliocentrism view of
our system ?

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

All astronomers see the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our
common heliocentric orbit around the central Sun,people who are not
astronomers will go along with Newton's false view -

"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 understanding of the Earth's position and motion between Venus
and Mars can only be derived by recognising that we see heliocentric
orbital motions from a moving Earth,not via a hypothetical observer on
the Sun as Isaac has it.I have yet to see one other person affirm that
there is one and only one way to approach and resolve retrogrades and
Newton's approach is certainly false,incorrect,what have you.

Quote:

Do you question the validity of the Bradley Fresnel experiment as
well ?
I will be pleased to read you.

By the way your geo-dynamic approach of Equatorial bulge genesis is
correct, although you are not noticing that such re-equilibrium when
it occurs following a major Cosmic Collision leads to major again then
faults-forming such as the Fjords of the Scandinavian craton & the
Colorado gorges by ex ( amongst numerous other occurences )

Thank you for the APOD ( Astronomical Picture Of the Day) link.

Best jp

As well thank you for your link to

oriel36

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:23 pm

Guest

On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Quote:

Do you question the validity of the Bradley Fresnel experiment as
well ?
I will be pleased to read you.

Ole Roemer.like Kepler before him,used orbital comparisons and
Jupiter's satellite Io to derive the Equation of Light (Mora
Luminis),an astronomical adjustment that is tiny at solar system level
but enormous at larger scales.

Bradley used celestial sphere geometry ,like Newton and Flamsteed,to
justify an astronomical observation by referencing the Earth's orbital
motion off celestial sphere geometry.The reasoning is not just
invalid ,it takes away from the new orbital component based on the
slow turning of the Earth with respect to the Sun over the course of
an annual orbit while keeping rotational orientation pointing in one
direction in space.For a genuine astronomer,the new component will
make far more sense,as for the Equation of Light,well that has been
out of bounds for centuries much like the great astronomical
refinements of Kepler.

There are multiple,multiple threads to untangle and Bradley's wayward
take on Roemer's insight is about 57 in a list of 70 things to
tackle.The main one centers on the correct way to approach and resolve
retrogrades and I still await confirmation that a severe mutation
occured in the late 17th century via this idiosyncratic and false
view -

"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

Quote:

Thank you for the APOD ( Astronomical Picture Of the Day) link.

Best jp

As well thank you for your link to

oriel36

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:04 am

Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 942

Quote:

In article
7ae33621-c665-4805-9050-84fa7ba9e...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Do you question the validity of the Bradley Fresnel experiment as
well ?
I will be pleased to read you.

Ole Roemer.like Kepler before him,used orbital comparisons and
Jupiter's satellite Io to derive the Equation of Light (Mora
Luminis),an astronomical adjustment that is tiny at solar system level
but enormous at larger scales.

That was a pretty remarkable result. He showed that light speed is
finite and came up with a reasonably accurate result, given his
instruments and methods.http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-03/3-03.htm

Bradley used celestial sphere geometry ,like Newton and Flamsteed,to
justify an astronomical observation by referencing the Earth's orbital
motion off celestial sphere geometry.The reasoning is not just
invalid ,

What's wrong with it?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_astronomy

it takes away from the new orbital component based on the
slow turning of the Earth with respect to the Sun over the course of
an annual orbit while keeping rotational orientation pointing in one
direction in space.

This effect is accounted for in modern astronomy. It is called sidereal
time and solar time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Sidereal_time_and_solar_time

For a genuine astronomer,the new component will
make far more sense,as for the Equation of Light,well that has been
out of bounds for centuries much like the great astronomical
refinements of Kepler.

No, it hasn't.http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-03/3-03.htm

There are multiple,multiple threads to untangle and Bradley's wayward
take on Roemer's insight is about 57 in a list of 70 things to
tackle.The main one centers on the correct way to approach and resolve
retrogrades

What's wrong with this explanation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Apparent_retrograde_mo...

and I still await confirmation that a severe mutation
occured in the late 17th century via this idiosyncratic and false
view -

"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

A perfectly good explanation for retrograde motion appears in astronomy
textbooks. It is perfectly good because it predicts that motion.

Thank you for the APOD ( Astronomical Picture Of the Day) link.

You seem to be saying that modern astronomy has some fundamental flaw
that makes it useless. But the simple fact is that those theories are
used successfully day after day to aim telescopes at the right place to
bring you Astronomical Pictures Of the Day. They're also used to send
space-based telescopes into their correct orbits, and from there aim
them at the right place in the sky to bring you more Astronomical
Pictures Of the Day.

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

Aside from not actually having ever read any modern astronomy text
books, what are your objections to the way astronomers measure positions
in the sky? (I know you said you have dozens of them. Feel free to put
them into simple words. I already know that since I disagree with you,
you do not consider me an adult, so please skip that lecture.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

oriel36

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:44 am

Guest

On Mar 7, 5:50 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:

Quote:

In article
eee98188-2e50-4cf3-bba7-585109604...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
On 6 mar, 06:30, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*> On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
*
*> Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
*> Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
*> introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
*> reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
*> Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should
be
*> enough for anybody at the moment.
*

May be I missed your point, could you please reword it ?

...especially considering your previous quote above. Indeed the period
of the Earth is longer than Venus & Mercury, and those two planets
overtake us. Why do you see the actual images of Jupiter & Saturn
being overtaken by the Earth questionning the Heliocentrism view of
our system ?

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

All astronomers see the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our
common heliocentric orbit around the central Sun,people who are not
astronomers will go along with Newton's false view -

"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

What's false about it? The planets do *appear* from time to time to move
backwards. And orbits move monotonically forward.

The understanding of the Earth's position and motion between Venus
and Mars can only be derived by recognising that we see heliocentric
orbital motions from a moving Earth,

Well, yeah.

not via a hypothetical observer on
the Sun as Isaac has it.

No, that's now you don't see retrograde motion.

I have yet to see one other person affirm that
there is one and only one way to approach and resolve retrogrades and
Newton's approach is certainly false,incorrect,what have you.

Any correct way to explain them is mathematically and geometrically
equivalent to any other way of explaining them, so while there may be
multiple ways to explain what's happening, they all mean the same thing.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Newton's approach. He is correct
in what he says. You are free, of course, to try to demonstrate how, as
seen from the sun, the planets do not have retrograde motion.

(Keep it simple, please. You're talking to someone who disagrees with
you.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps I was too harsh on you,after all,you are trying.Accept my
apologies

There is no sense of the devastation which occured due to the mutation
and the introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into the works of
Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer in creating a wasteland.

Retrogrades are the plotted positions of the planets against the
stellar background,these have been known to all astronomers since
antiquity.Modern imaging shows what th backward progression looks
like ,at least for Jupiter and Saturn -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

Has everyone got this part straight so I do not have to repeat it
again.

The pre-Copernican astronomers considered great spiralling motions
(not epicycles) while Copernicus attributed an orbital motion to the
Earth allowing axial rotation to explain the daily cycle.Want to here
it from Kepler -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],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' [corollas] 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 refering to diagram
on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

Newton was a fool,he thought if he replaced the Sun at the center of
the diagram it makes the loops disappear notwithstanding that the
loop[s represent both the motion of Mars and that of the Earth hence -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times "

Astronomy at the level of Kepler is a gift,a language onto itself
which is why he calls it 'contemplative' astronomy mirroring the
highest Christian faculty and way different than the surface language
and ideals applied by so many to Christianity and to astronomy -

"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

You come from the rank of geometers but since Kepler wrote that,your
crowd has even have done away with geometry and rely on vague and ill-
defined equational correlations which people mistake for
brilliance.That being said and despite the destruction caused,there is
room to work with genuine dynamicists.such as I have outlined in other
areas where processes are involved but not structural or timekeeping
astronomy.

BradGuth

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:44 am

Guest

On Mar 7, 9:04 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

For all his foul mouthing of Australia , his horrible anti-Christian
sentiments and others things,Turcaud has that little bit of class is
asking particular questions which you could'nt even understand.I have
no interest seeing the return of a cornered rat so go back and enjoy
your geostationary convection cells and you variable tilting Earth
among those who know no better or are inclined to those notions.

If you want an insult,let me see if I have one for you,oh here is one
- 'you should be hung upside down by the balls and set on fire'.Are
you happy or is that too much ?

On Mar 7, 5:46 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:

In article
7ae33621-c665-4805-9050-84fa7ba9e...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Do you question the validity of the Bradley Fresnel experiment as
well ?
I will be pleased to read you.

Ole Roemer.like Kepler before him,used orbital comparisons and
Jupiter's satellite Io to derive the Equation of Light (Mora
Luminis),an astronomical adjustment that is tiny at solar system level
but enormous at larger scales.

That was a pretty remarkable result. He showed that light speed is
finite and came up with a reasonably accurate result, given his
instruments and methods.http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-03/3-03.htm

Bradley used celestial sphere geometry ,like Newton and Flamsteed,to
justify an astronomical observation by referencing the Earth's orbital
motion off celestial sphere geometry.The reasoning is not just
invalid ,

What's wrong with it?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_astronomy

it takes away from the new orbital component based on the
slow turning of the Earth with respect to the Sun over the course of
an annual orbit while keeping rotational orientation pointing in one
direction in space.

This effect is accounted for in modern astronomy. It is called sidereal
time and solar time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Sidereal_time_and_solar_time

For a genuine astronomer,the new component will
make far more sense,as for the Equation of Light,well that has been
out of bounds for centuries much like the great astronomical
refinements of Kepler.

No, it hasn't.http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-03/3-03.htm

There are multiple,multiple threads to untangle and Bradley's wayward
take on Roemer's insight is about 57 in a list of 70 things to
tackle.The main one centers on the correct way to approach and resolve
retrogrades

What's wrong with this explanation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Apparent_retrograde_mo...

and I still await confirmation that a severe mutation
occured in the late 17th century via this idiosyncratic and false
view -

"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

A perfectly good explanation for retrograde motion appears in astronomy
textbooks. It is perfectly good because it predicts that motion.

Thank you for the APOD ( Astronomical Picture Of the Day) link.

You seem to be saying that modern astronomy has some fundamental flaw
that makes it useless. But the simple fact is that those theories are
used successfully day after day to aim telescopes at the right place to
bring you Astronomical Pictures Of the Day. They're also used to send
space-based telescopes into their correct orbits, and from there aim
them at the right place in the sky to bring you more Astronomical
Pictures Of the Day.

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

Aside from not actually having ever read any modern astronomy text
books, what are your objections to the way astronomers measure positions
in the sky? (I know you said you have dozens of them. Feel free to put
them into simple words. I already know that since I disagree with you,
you do not consider me an adult, so please skip that lecture.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

For this anti-think-tank of a nayism Usenet from hell, most anything
that's not of Old Testament scripted on behalf of their pretend-
atheism cult way of looking at most things, is going to be too much
for their swarm mindset.
. - Brad Guth

Timberwoof

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:46 pm

Guest

In article
<7ae33621-c665-4805-9050-84fa7ba9e88b@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Do you question the validity of the Bradley Fresnel experiment as
well ?
I will be pleased to read you.

Ole Roemer.like Kepler before him,used orbital comparisons and
Jupiter's satellite Io to derive the Equation of Light (Mora
Luminis),an astronomical adjustment that is tiny at solar system level
but enormous at larger scales.

That was a pretty remarkable result. He showed that light speed is
finite and came up with a reasonably accurate result, given his
instruments and methods.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-03/3-03.htm

Quote:

Bradley used celestial sphere geometry ,like Newton and Flamsteed,to
justify an astronomical observation by referencing the Earth's orbital
motion off celestial sphere geometry.The reasoning is not just
invalid ,

What's wrong with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_astronomy

Quote:

it takes away from the new orbital component based on the
slow turning of the Earth with respect to the Sun over the course of
an annual orbit while keeping rotational orientation pointing in one
direction in space.

This effect is accounted for in modern astronomy. It is called sidereal
time and solar time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Sidereal_time_and_solar_time

Quote:

For a genuine astronomer,the new component will
make far more sense,as for the Equation of Light,well that has been
out of bounds for centuries much like the great astronomical
refinements of Kepler.

No, it hasn't. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-03/3-03.htm

Quote:

There are multiple,multiple threads to untangle and Bradley's wayward
take on Roemer's insight is about 57 in a list of 70 things to
tackle.The main one centers on the correct way to approach and resolve
retrogrades

What's wrong with this explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Apparent_retrograde_motion

Quote:

and I still await confirmation that a severe mutation
occured in the late 17th century via this idiosyncratic and false
view -

"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

A perfectly good explanation for retrograde motion appears in astronomy
textbooks. It is perfectly good because it predicts that motion.

Quote:

Thank you for the APOD ( Astronomical Picture Of the Day) link.

You seem to be saying that modern astronomy has some fundamental flaw
that makes it useless. But the simple fact is that those theories are
used successfully day after day to aim telescopes at the right place to
bring you Astronomical Pictures Of the Day. They're also used to send
space-based telescopes into their correct orbits, and from there aim
them at the right place in the sky to bring you more Astronomical
Pictures Of the Day.

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

Aside from not actually having ever read any modern astronomy text
books, what are your objections to the way astronomers measure positions
in the sky? (I know you said you have dozens of them. Feel free to put
them into simple words. I already know that since I disagree with you,
you do not consider me an adult, so please skip that lecture.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:50 pm

Guest

In article
<eee98188-2e50-4cf3-bba7-585109604285@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
On 6 mar, 06:30, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*> On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
*
*> Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
*> Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
*> introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
*> reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
*> Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should
be
*> enough for anybody at the moment.
*

May be I missed your point, could you please reword it ?

...especially considering your previous quote above. Indeed the period
of the Earth is longer than Venus & Mercury, and those two planets
overtake us. Why do you see the actual images of Jupiter & Saturn
being overtaken by the Earth questionning the Heliocentrism view of
our system ?

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

All astronomers see the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our
common heliocentric orbit around the central Sun,people who are not
astronomers will go along with Newton's false view -

"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

What's false about it? The planets do *appear* from time to time to move
backwards. And orbits move monotonically forward.

Quote:

The understanding of the Earth's position and motion between Venus
and Mars can only be derived by recognising that we see heliocentric
orbital motions from a moving Earth,

Well, yeah.

Quote:

not via a hypothetical observer on
the Sun as Isaac has it.

No, that's now you don't see retrograde motion.

Quote:

I have yet to see one other person affirm that
there is one and only one way to approach and resolve retrogrades and
Newton's approach is certainly false,incorrect,what have you.

Any correct way to explain them is mathematically and geometrically
equivalent to any other way of explaining them, so while there may be
multiple ways to explain what's happening, they all mean the same thing.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Newton's approach. He is correct
in what he says. You are free, of course, to try to demonstrate how, as
seen from the sun, the planets do not have retrograde motion.

(Keep it simple, please. You're talking to someone who disagrees with
you.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:28 pm

On 7 mar, 18:44, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 7, 5:50 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:

In article
eee98188-2e50-4cf3-bba7-585109604...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
On 6 mar, 06:30, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*> On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
*
*> Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
*> Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
*> introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
*> reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
*> Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should
be
*> enough for anybody at the moment.
*

May be I missed your point, could you please reword it ?

...especially considering your previous quote above. Indeed the period
of the Earth is longer than Venus & Mercury, and those two planets
overtake us. Why do you see the actual images of Jupiter & Saturn
being overtaken by the Earth questionning the Heliocentrism view of
our system ?

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

All astronomers see the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our
common heliocentric orbit around the central Sun,people who are not
astronomers will go along with Newton's false view -

"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

What's false about it? The planets do *appear* from time to time to move
backwards. And orbits move monotonically forward.

The understanding of the Earth's position and motion between Venus
and Mars can only be derived by recognising that we see heliocentric
orbital motions from a moving Earth,

Well, yeah.

not via a hypothetical observer on
the Sun as Isaac has it.

No, that's now you don't see retrograde motion.

I have yet to see one other person affirm that
there is one and only one way to approach and resolve retrogrades and
Newton's approach is certainly false,incorrect,what have you.

Any correct way to explain them is mathematically and geometrically
equivalent to any other way of explaining them, so while there may be
multiple ways to explain what's happening, they all mean the same thing.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Newton's approach. He is correct
in what he says. You are free, of course, to try to demonstrate how, as
seen from the sun, the planets do not have retrograde motion.

(Keep it simple, please. You're talking to someone who disagrees with
you.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps I was too harsh on you,after all,you are trying.Accept my
apologies

There is no sense of the devastation which occured due to the mutation
and the introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into the works of
Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer in creating a wasteland.

Retrogrades are the plotted positions of the planets against the
stellar background,these have been known to all astronomers since
antiquity.Modern imaging shows what th backward progression looks
like ,at least for Jupiter and Saturn -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

Has everyone got this part straight so I do not have to repeat it
again.

The pre-Copernican astronomers considered great spiralling motions
(not epicycles) while Copernicus attributed an orbital motion to the
Earth allowing axial rotation to explain the daily cycle.Want to here
it from Kepler -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],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' [corollas] 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 refering to diagram
on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

Newton was a fool,he thought if he replaced the Sun at the center of
the diagram it makes the loops disappear notwithstanding that the
loop[s represent both the motion of Mars and that of the Earth hence -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times "

Astronomy at the level of Kepler is a gift,a language onto itself
which is why he calls it 'contemplative' astronomy mirroring the
highest Christian faculty and way different than the surface language
and ideals applied by so many to Christianity and to astronomy -

"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

You come from the rank of geometers but since Kepler wrote that,your
crowd has even have done away with geometry and rely on vague and ill-
defined equational correlations which people mistake for
brilliance.That being said and despite the destruction caused,there is
room to work with genuine dynamicists.such as I have outlined in other
areas where processes are involved but not structural or timekeeping
astronomy.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Dear Oriel36

Would you qualify yourself as geocentrist ?

Best jp

oriel36

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:39 pm

Guest

On Mar 8, 6:28 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

Quote:

On 7 mar, 18:44, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:50 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:

In article
eee98188-2e50-4cf3-bba7-585109604...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:50 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
On 6 mar, 06:30, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*> On Mar 6, 4:42 am, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:
*
*> Few people could handle the maneuvering that began with
*> Flamsteed,exploded through Newton and ended with Bradley,the
*> introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into heliocentric
*> reasoning.The fact that the actual images of the Earth overtaking
*> Jupiter and Saturn causes Newton's approach to disintegrate should
be
*> enough for anybody at the moment.
*

May be I missed your point, could you please reword it ?

...especially considering your previous quote above. Indeed the period
of the Earth is longer than Venus & Mercury, and those two planets
overtake us. Why do you see the actual images of Jupiter & Saturn
being overtaken by the Earth questionning the Heliocentrism view of
our system ?

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

All astronomers see the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our
common heliocentric orbit around the central Sun,people who are not
astronomers will go along with Newton's false view -

"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

What's false about it? The planets do *appear* from time to time to move
backwards. And orbits move monotonically forward.

The understanding of the Earth's position and motion between Venus
and Mars can only be derived by recognising that we see heliocentric
orbital motions from a moving Earth,

Well, yeah.

not via a hypothetical observer on
the Sun as Isaac has it.

No, that's now you don't see retrograde motion.

I have yet to see one other person affirm that
there is one and only one way to approach and resolve retrogrades and
Newton's approach is certainly false,incorrect,what have you.

Any correct way to explain them is mathematically and geometrically
equivalent to any other way of explaining them, so while there may be
multiple ways to explain what's happening, they all mean the same thing.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Newton's approach. He is correct
in what he says. You are free, of course, to try to demonstrate how, as
seen from the sun, the planets do not have retrograde motion.

(Keep it simple, please. You're talking to someone who disagrees with
you.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps I was too harsh on you,after all,you are trying.Accept my
apologies

There is no sense of the devastation which occured due to the mutation
and the introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into the works of
Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer in creating a wasteland.

Retrogrades are the plotted positions of the planets against the
stellar background,these have been known to all astronomers since
antiquity.Modern imaging shows what th backward progression looks
like ,at least for Jupiter and Saturn -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

Has everyone got this part straight so I do not have to repeat it
again.

The pre-Copernican astronomers considered great spiralling motions
(not epicycles) while Copernicus attributed an orbital motion to the
Earth allowing axial rotation to explain the daily cycle.Want to here
it from Kepler -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],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' [corollas] 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 refering to diagram
on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

Newton was a fool,he thought if he replaced the Sun at the center of
the diagram it makes the loops disappear notwithstanding that the
loop[s represent both the motion of Mars and that of the Earth hence -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times "

Astronomy at the level of Kepler is a gift,a language onto itself
which is why he calls it 'contemplative' astronomy mirroring the
highest Christian faculty and way different than the surface language
and ideals applied by so many to Christianity and to astronomy -

"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

You come from the rank of geometers but since Kepler wrote that,your
crowd has even have done away with geometry and rely on vague and ill-
defined equational correlations which people mistake for
brilliance.That being said and despite the destruction caused,there is
room to work with genuine dynamicists.such as I have outlined in other
areas where processes are involved but not structural or timekeeping
astronomy.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Dear Oriel36

Would you qualify yourself as geocentrist ?

Best jp- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Silence on the matter of Newton's false approach and resolution of
retrogrades constitutes an attack on heliocentric reasoning insofar as
it has no precedence in the methods,insights and texts of commentators
like Kepler,Galileo and Roemer or indeed astronomy itself

You are cut from the same cloth as those who you pretend to oppose
given that even with the actual images of the Earth overtaking the
outer planets with the central stationary Sun inferred,you have
nothing to say about the statement where it all went astray -

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

"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

Bon soir John,I assure you that given you the credit I did will not
happen again.

oriel36

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:31 am

Guest

On Mar 8, 11:46 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:

Quote:

In article
727236eb-645c-4020-a28b-f37c88176...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
For all his foul mouthing of Australia , his horrible anti-Christian
sentiments and others things,Turcaud has that little bit of class is
asking particular questions which you could'nt even understand.I have
no interest seeing the return of a cornered rat so go back and enjoy
your geostationary convection cells and you variable tilting Earth
among those who know no better or are inclined to those notions.

If you want an insult,let me see if I have one for you,oh here is one
- 'you should be hung upside down by the balls and set on fire'.Are
you happy or is that too much ?

Sounds pretty kinky, but fireplay is beyond my limits.

Why don't you just explain what's wrong with Newtonian astronomy and
tell us why NASA, using those ideas, can't get a single spacecraft into
orbit?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

I can let you live with that illness where people positively refuse to
believe Newton got is so badly wrong that there is nothing left of his
ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion and all the exotic
outriggers that sprouted from it like warped space,multiple
universes,dark this and dark that ect.As far as I am concerned it is a
full blown illlness now but it belongs to you and not to the rest of
humanity who are unfamilia with the material.

No doubt you can continue on believing that there are a number of ways
to approach the observed behavior of the other planets and especially
retrogrades but thereis only one way to resolve those apparent
motions.Try Galileo using actual footage of the Earth overtaking
Jupiter and Saturn -

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." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

All the same magnificent understanding using the observed motion of
the Earth whether it is Kepler ,Galileo or many others,no hypothetical
observer on the Sun to account for retrogrades (Newton) but just a
lovely and neat fitting argument which allows axial rotation to
explain the daily cycle as seen from a rotating Earth.

If humanity loses its balance at the greatest known Western
astronomical achievement and decides that it can choose an alternative
means to explain observed motions then it is not only wrong,it becomes
dangerous.I am not attacking Newton,I am promoting the astronomy of
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo in an era which will have none of it and
I can testify that in the years I have shown both the correct and
incorrect view side by side,I have yet to receive a single affirmation
that a bad mutation to the great Western achievement occured through
Newton.

None of you belong in science if this stands -

"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

Timberwoof

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:42 am

Guest

In article
<dc8f9a75-6d48-49f3-bb6c-2af0fd8049c2@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Maybe, if you promise not to be so pompous.

Quote:

There is no sense of the devastation which occured due to the mutation
and the introduction of celestial sphere reasoning into the works of
Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer in creating a wasteland.

Retrogrades are the plotted positions of the planets against the
stellar background,these have been known to all astronomers since
antiquity.Modern imaging shows what th backward progression looks
like ,at least for Jupiter and Saturn -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

Has everyone got this part straight so I do not have to repeat it
again.

Whups. Too late. You're being pompous. I understand retrograde motion.
Quit pretending that it's some mysterious thing. No. Wait... do you
believe that it is some mysterious thing?

Quote:

The pre-Copernican astronomers considered great spiralling motions
(not epicycles) while Copernicus attributed an orbital motion to the
Earth allowing axial rotation to explain the daily cycle.Want to here
it from Kepler -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],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' [corollas] 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 refering to diagram
on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

Newton was a fool,he thought if he replaced the Sun at the center of
the diagram it makes the loops disappear notwithstanding that the
loop[s represent both the motion of Mars and that of the Earth hence -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times "

Astronomy at the level of Kepler is a gift,a language onto itself
which is why he calls it 'contemplative' astronomy mirroring the
highest Christian faculty and way different than the surface language
and ideals applied by so many to Christianity and to astronomy -

"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

You come from the rank of geometers but since Kepler wrote that,your
crowd has even have done away with geometry

Bullshit! That's nonsense. Look, between my junior and senior years in
highy school, I took some summer classes in astronomy at he University
of Iowa. Then at university, I took honors astronomy. All of my
astronomy textbooks contain sections on geometry as applied to measuring
the solar system.

Quote:

and rely on vague and ill-
defined equational correlations which people mistake for
brilliance.

What's wrong with mathematical equations to supplement geometry?

Quote:

That being said and despite the destruction caused,there is
room to work with genuine dynamicists.such as I have outlined in other
areas where processes are involved but not structural or timekeeping
astronomy.

What does any of this have to do with retrograde motion? Could you
explain your view of retrograde motion without delving into your eternal
tiresome Newton-bashing? Forget Newton. Just show us the geometry.

Could you explain, without bashing Newton, what NASA spacecraft
engineers are doing wrong, and why none of the spacecraft that they
attempt to launch into space and orbit around the Earth, Mars, Venus,
and other planets ever meet their intended targets? No. Wait a moment. I
think I am mistaken. I think that NASA and others are reasonably
successful at sending spacecraft to other planets, based on Newtonian
gravity and modern geometrical analyses of planetary motion. Hmmm. I
guess they're not as wrong as you say. Now how can that be?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:54 pm Science Forum Index