| |
Main
Date: 28 May 2007 02:39:51
From: oriel36
Subject: The basic outlines using modern imaging
|
The Earth great orbital motion is nestled between Venus and Mars and
the appreciation of it is fairly easy to anyone with basic judgements
on motions.
The faster Earth in an inner orbital circuit overtaling the slower
moving outer planets looks like .These are actual images of the slower
Jupiter and the even slower and further Saturn being overtaken by the
Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The person who appreciates this will immediately recognise how
Copernicus then figured out that axial rotation causes the daily
cycle.From this principle the great association bgetween clocks and
the daily cycle as 24 hours/360 degrees began -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
Since the era of Copernicus,magnification and photographic equipment
has emerged which allows the appreciation of the faster orbital
motion of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth as the
most immediate and enjoyable way to affirm a common heliocentric orbit
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_fd8O1sk3I
With the wonderful contemporary means of time lapse footage to
appreciate Copernican reasoning ,only those who hate astronomy would
opt for a false notion such as the contemporary dominant Newtonian
one -
"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 Americans seem to like the godless ideals of the empirical cult
and its doctrines which destroy individual human achievement for a
consensus ideologies. for I have yet to see one person affirm the
Earth's orbital motion and axial rotation in the way it was
originally presented and that is a strong indication of a very bad
situation.The fact that most people are funding the endeavors of
astrological concepts to the tune of billions is hardly a concern of
mine but as I begin to tidy up the arguments and use imaging to
greater effect,it may be that the real heroes of our race and the
concepts which they promoted will once again shine in this most
unreasonable era.
The mathematicians here look pathetic when confronted with the actual
images which show how to extract the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth and this is the most disappointing thing of all.A honest person
can look at the time lapse footage and easily enjoy what
Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler could along with seeing how the
timekeeping astronomers created the principles which clocks in sync
with the daily cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.
The basic outlines are there for people to improve on,not just for a
better future for the education of kids but also as indivual human
achievements.It is time for new heroes and the return of the merit
system which relies on real contributions to humanity.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 16:33:32
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The basic outlines using modern imaging
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I well know that most here would have no problem working with the
> relative speed of the Earth to the inner and outer planets ,again,I
> may remind you that you are the first to affirm the heliocentric
> version of 'transits' as the most immediate and potent observation of
> a common heliocentric motion between a faster moving inner planet and
> a slower moving Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop.
>
> Taking advantage of telescopes and imaging to split the inner planets
> from the outer planets by using the Earth's slower orbital motion to
> the inner planets and the faster orbital motion to the outer planets
> is something anybody can do .There is no way of determining the
> Earth's orbital motion between the inner and outer planets when
> retrogrades are resolved by a blanket statement using a hypotherical
> observer on the Sun -
>
> "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
.
These statements of yours are extremely puzzling to me.
If retrogades, from the perspective of the Earth, are caused because
Venus moves faster than the Earth, and Mars moves slower than the
Earth, then doesn't that *exactly* mean that Venus is moving, faster
than the Earth, always directly counterclockwise around the Sun, and
Mars is moving, slower than the Earth, always directly
counterclockwise around the Sun?
As could be seen, say, by an observer with a good telescope on Pluto,
never mind an imaginary observer on the Sun which is too hot for any
observers. Since Pluto takes about 2,000 years to orbit the Sun, the
orbits of Venus, Earth, and Mars around the Sun would seem very
heliocentric to such an observer, just as the Galilean satellites of
Jupiter obviously orbit around Jupiter. They make retrogades from each
other's viewpoints, but they are no more retrogade from the viewpoint
of an *imaginary* observer on Jupiter... than the Moon is ever
retrogade from the viewpoint of the very real observers on the Earth.
It *may* be you are simply objecting to dragging in imperfect external
reference frames, like that of the fixed stars. After all, the galaxy
does rotate, even though that is very slow.
Would you have liked it better if Newton talked about motions relative
to "anisotropies in the microwave background radiation" instead of the
fixed stars? I think we can forgive him for that omission!
If you use only the Earth's motions - if you take the Earth's motion
around the Sun in terms of the _anomalistic_ year - that still ends up
subtracting four minutes from every day, giving approximately a 23
hour and 56 minute rotation for the Earth. This is how the Earth would
be seen to move from a vantage point on Pluto, as well.
> It is too intense and involved to go into the details right now which
> seems to work in favor of those wishing to retain the counter-
> productive views of Newton but considering the sheer volume of
> productive avenues it negates,apart from the careless treatment of
> Copernican/Keplerian geometries,I am genuinely surprised that people
> seem actually afraid to comment even when images and the original
> texts clearly show where Isaac got it badly wrong or rather,appreciate
> what is correct first to know where he got it wrong.
If the details are difficult for you to explain, you should realize
they are difficult for us to guess at. If, indeed the Newtonian
viewpoint were obviously wrong, I would think someone would be able to
see it; but it makes perfect sense to us. If you think of the Solar
System as a tabletop orrery, the Newtonian perspective on heliocentric
motion just says everything is so much simpler to explain if you look
at it all from the perspective of someone sitting at the table. From
those actual motions, each one simple in itself, one can then derive
how the motions of the other parts of the orrery look from one of the
moving parts - the globe representing the Earth.
How can this be a terrible mistake?
> Even if there is no influence,at least it gets you
> into compound motions and relative motion rather than an isolated
> solar system and 'fixed stars/astrological framework conceptions -
> I may think it is tempting but no offense,without recognising orbital
> comparisons for heliocentric motion,it is impossible to know if the
> solar system's galactic orbital motion in one direction affects the
> heliocentric orbital motions of the planets as theplanets spend half
> their orbits travelling in the opposite direction of the Sun's
> galactic orbital motion and the other half with the Sun in the
> direction of the solar system's galactic orbital motion.
We know perfectly well *both* that the "fixed stars" move, and that
they move so slowly relative to the motions inside our Solar System
that we can use them as an approximation to a fixed reference.
Astrology - which _is_ bunk - has nothing to do with it.
> Again,it is
> working with relative and compound motions and who can object to
> that.
Just about everybody here *is* objecting to exactly that!
Because the best way _to_ work with relative and compound motions is
to *disentangle* them into individual simple motions. The motions
within the Solar System lend themselves to being disentangled in this
way; if we neglect this step, then we are refusing the *obvious* first
step in working with these motions, and all our calculations will be
needlessly more complex and subject to error.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 09:36:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The basic outlines using modern imaging
|
On May 28, 1:38 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The Earth great orbital motion is nestled between Venus and Mars and
> > the appreciation of it is fairly easy to anyone with basic judgements
> > on motions.
> .
> > Since the era of Copernicus,magnification and photographic equipment
> > has emerged which allows the appreciation of the faster orbital
> > motion of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth as the
> > most immediate and enjoyable way to affirm a common heliocentric orbit
>
> .
> So far, this makes sense.
>
If it makes sense then congratulations !,it means you are the second
person on the planet to appreciate what 'transits' actually are - the
faster inner planets overtaking the slower orbitally moving Earth
with the central Sun as a backdrop
The geocentrists determine that Venus passes between the Earth and the
Sun (it would be valid for Ptolemaic astronomy) while the astrologers
are further down the scale and determine that Venus crosses the face
of the Sun.
> > With the wonderful contemporary means of time lapse footage to
> > appreciate Copernican reasoning ,only those who hate astronomy would
> > opt for a false notion such as the contemporary dominant Newtonian
> > one -
>
> > "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
>
> .
> Here, I am puzzled. If the Earth orbits the Sun, with an orbit between
> that of Venus and Mars, and if the retrogade motion of Mars is caused
> by the faster Earth overtaking it, then doesn't that mean that Earth
> is moving unidirectionally, and Mars is moving unidirectionally as
> well, but with a slower angular velocity around the Sun?
>
Recognition of a common heliocentric orbit is made through orbital
comparisons,the arrangement of planets around the Sun is determined by
the relative motions of the Earth to the other planets.Without
telescopes and imaging,the ability to use transits as a heliocentric
argument would have been denied Copernicus but this argument is now
availible for all .The 'transit' event is the most direct and
immediate way to appreciate a common heliocentric motion for the Earth
and Venus/Mercury in therir respective arrangement around the Sun.
> How are your earlier statements on retrogade motion in conflict with
> the "dominant Newtonian" viewpoint?
>
Newton statement is not just in direct conflict with the time lapse
footage of the outer planets but with the original texts of
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm
The isolation of the Earth's orbital motion in determining that our
planet overtakes the slower moving outer planets and thereby
accounting for apparent retrogrades allowed Copernicus to determine
that axial rotation causes the daily cycle.If you use a hypothetical
observer on the Sun to account for retrogrades and a common
heliocentric orbit for the planets as Newton tried to do how are you
going to extract axial rotation ?.The answer is that you cannot.
This tactic of ignoring the original comments of the
Copernicus,Galileo ect and foisting it on me as my opinion does not
and never has worked.I have contemporary imaging to support the
original texts and nothing supports the stupid,I do not use that word
lightly,the stupid way Newton tried to approach and resolve
retrogrades.
> > The Americans seem to like the godless ideals of the empirical cult
> > and its doctrines which destroy individual human achievement for a
> > consensus ideologies. for I have yet to see one person affirm the
> > Earth's orbital motion and axial rotation in the way it was
> > originally presented and that is a strong indication of a very bad
> > situation.
>
> .
> I certainly would not like to continue to maintain a false view about
> the movements of the planets.
>
> But so far, I have been unable to *understand* what you claim that
> Copernicus genuinely advanced as the actual heliocentric scheme of the
> Solar System. Most people believe that "heliocentric" means precisely
> the current paradigm, and the steps from Copernicus to Newton are
> simply:
>
> - Copernicus had the planets moving around the Sun, but still used
> circular motion;
>
Copernicus determined that the Earth has seperate axial and orbital
motions to account for the observed behavior of the planets and the
Sun.In using the faster orbital motion of the Earth to account for the
motion of outer planets it leaves axial rotation to explain the daily
cycle .The priority of orbital comparisons to determine a common
heliocentric orbit for all the planets is not advanced by creating a
hypothetical observer on the Sun for it robs the observer of the
actual experience of looking out on the planets and appreciating that
the position and movement of our planet is involved with the others in
a motion around the out of view central Sun.
> - Kepler replaced the circles and epicycles with ellipses, describing
> the motions of the Solar System as we understand them today;
>
Kepler is explicit in determining that orbital comparisons between the
Earth and the other planets resolves apparent 'retrogrades' and
particularly Mars -
"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 " Astronomia Nova 1609
> - Newton then came up with the inverse square law of gravitation, as
> well as conservation of angular momentum, to give an explanation for
> _exactly the same planetary motions_ that Kepler described.
>
I actually know what Newton did,why it is not just wrong but unethical
and destructive for people who might want a second crack at Keplerian
orbital geometries with 21st century data.I never had to leave the
original false Newtonian approach/resolution of retrogrades for it
does not recognise,not just the Keplerian refinement in determining
elliptical orbits but the actual Copernican working methods which
Kepler employed based on orbital comparisons.
> If we have misunderstood either Kepler or Copernicus, then we would
> need to know in what way we have done so.
>
I cannot do this,it is not my call and I can only provide the texts
and images combined to show a serious situation exists where very
specific mistakes as a progression,first Flamsteed's false correlation
between axial rotation and the constellational framework and then
Newton's false approach to retrogrades and their resolution.
> The last time you posted here, it seemed to me that you were
> advocating the system proposed by Tycho Brahe. But if you speak of a
> faster moving Earth overtaking a slower moving Mars, that cannot be
> the case.
>
> John Savard
I well know that most here would have no problem working with the
relative speed of the Earth to the inner and outer planets ,again,I
may remind you that you are the first to affirm the heliocentric
version of 'transits' as the most immediate and potent observation of
a common heliocentric motion between a faster moving inner planet and
a slower moving Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop.
Taking advantage of telescopes and imaging to split the inner planets
from the outer planets by using the Earth's slower orbital motion to
the inner planets and the faster orbital motion to the outer planets
is something anybody can do .There is no way of determining the
Earth's orbital motion between the inner and outer planets when
retrogrades are resolved by a blanket statement using a hypotherical
observer on the Sun -
"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
That statement involves a very specific misjudgement of the Keplerian
representation of page 86 -
http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf
It is too intense and involved to go into the details right now which
seems to work in favor of those wishing to retain the counter-
productive views of Newton but considering the sheer volume of
productive avenues it negates,apart from the careless treatment of
Copernican/Keplerian geometries,I am genuinely surprised that people
seem actually afraid to comment even when images and the original
texts clearly show where Isaac got it badly wrong or rather,appreciate
what is correct first to know where he got it wrong.
With nothing new coming in ,why not have a fresh look at Keplerian
orbital geometries with 21st century data that recognises that the
solar system's galactic orbital motion or rather the Sun's forward
galactic orbital motion may have something to do with Keplerian
orbital geometries.Even if there is no influence,at least it gets you
into compound motions and relative motion rather than an isolated
solar system and 'fixed stars/astrological framework conceptions -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton
I may think it is tempting but no offense,without recognising orbital
comparisons for heliocentric motion,it is impossible to know if the
solar system's galactic orbital motion in one direction affects the
heliocentric orbital motions of the planets as theplanets spend half
their orbits travelling in the opposite direction of the Sun's
galactic orbital motion and the other half with the Sun in the
direction of the solar system's galactic orbital motion.Again,it is
working with relative and compound motions and who can object to
that.
That is it.
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 05:38:27
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The basic outlines using modern imaging
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The Earth great orbital motion is nestled between Venus and Mars and
> the appreciation of it is fairly easy to anyone with basic judgements
> on motions.
.
> Since the era of Copernicus,magnification and photographic equipment
> has emerged which allows the appreciation of the faster orbital
> motion of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth as the
> most immediate and enjoyable way to affirm a common heliocentric orbit
.
So far, this makes sense.
> With the wonderful contemporary means of time lapse footage to
> appreciate Copernican reasoning ,only those who hate astronomy would
> opt for a false notion such as the contemporary dominant Newtonian
> one -
>
> "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
.
Here, I am puzzled. If the Earth orbits the Sun, with an orbit between
that of Venus and Mars, and if the retrogade motion of Mars is caused
by the faster Earth overtaking it, then doesn't that mean that Earth
is moving unidirectionally, and Mars is moving unidirectionally as
well, but with a slower angular velocity around the Sun?
How are your earlier statements on retrogade motion in conflict with
the "dominant Newtonian" viewpoint?
> The Americans seem to like the godless ideals of the empirical cult
> and its doctrines which destroy individual human achievement for a
> consensus ideologies. for I have yet to see one person affirm the
> Earth's orbital motion and axial rotation in the way it was
> originally presented and that is a strong indication of a very bad
> situation.
.
I certainly would not like to continue to maintain a false view about
the movements of the planets.
But so far, I have been unable to *understand* what you claim that
Copernicus genuinely advanced as the actual heliocentric scheme of the
Solar System. Most people believe that "heliocentric" means precisely
the current paradigm, and the steps from Copernicus to Newton are
simply:
- Copernicus had the planets moving around the Sun, but still used
circular motion;
- Kepler replaced the circles and epicycles with ellipses, describing
the motions of the Solar System as we understand them today;
- Newton then came up with the inverse square law of gravitation, as
well as conservation of angular momentum, to give an explanation for
_exactly the same planetary motions_ that Kepler described.
If we have misunderstood either Kepler or Copernicus, then we would
need to know in what way we have done so.
The last time you posted here, it seemed to me that you were
advocating the system proposed by Tycho Brahe. But if you speak of a
faster moving Earth overtaking a slower moving Mars, that cannot be
the case.
John Savard
|
|
