| |
Main
Date: 15 Oct 2006 04:44:24
From: oriel36
Subject: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
" In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the forward
and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and smaller
than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in Mercury.
This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
Mercury..... All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which is
in the earth's motion." COPERNICUS
He does not talk of what the motions of the planets look like from the
Sun,he talks of how the motions of the planets around the Sun are
explained from an orbitally moving Earth "can be found in no other
way".
Newton clearly switched the perception of retrogrades from being
plotted motions against the stellar background to an Earth based view
and switched the resolution from an orbitally moving Earth to what
planetary motions wouldappear like from 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
Astronomy cannot support this tragedy which prevents the careful work
of astronomers to be destroyed by a casual treatment of precise
astronomical methods and insights.I refuse to believe that an
astronomer would support a Newtonian view which is creating havoc in
areas where an accurate relationship between axial and orbital motions
are required .
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:37:27
From: OG
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160912664.563530.56320@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> " In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
> the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
> of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
> For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the forward
> and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and smaller
> than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in Mercury.
> This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
> than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
> Mercury..... All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which is
> in the earth's motion." COPERNICUS
>
> He does not talk of what the motions of the planets look like from the
> Sun,he talks of how the motions of the planets around the Sun are
> explained from an orbitally moving Earth "can be found in no other
> way".
>
> Newton clearly switched the perception of retrogrades from being
> plotted motions against the stellar background to an Earth based view
> and switched the resolution from an orbitally moving Earth to what
> planetary motions wouldappear like from 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
>
> Astronomy cannot support this tragedy which prevents the careful work
> of astronomers to be destroyed by a casual treatment of precise
> astronomical methods and insights.I refuse to believe that an
> astronomer would support a Newtonian view which is creating havoc in
> areas where an accurate relationship between axial and orbital motions
> are required .
>
Oriel36, you know that there are still problems with you not explaining
yourself clearly on this point. Please do not repeatedlykeep posting until
you have clarified your explanation of the problem.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 12:27:49
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
OG wrote:
> Oriel36, you know that there are still problems with you not explaining
> yourself clearly on this point. Please do not repeatedlykeep posting until
> you have clarified your explanation of the problem.
You might just as well ask the sun not to come up tomorrow. Kill-file
him like the rest of us have. If it weren't for your replies, we
wouldn't see Oriel36 at all...
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:16:50
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160912664.563530.56320@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> > " In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
> > the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
> > of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
> > For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the forward
> > and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and smaller
> > than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in Mercury.
> > This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
> > than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
> > Mercury..... All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which is
> > in the earth's motion." COPERNICUS
> >
> > He does not talk of what the motions of the planets look like from the
> > Sun,he talks of how the motions of the planets around the Sun are
> > explained from an orbitally moving Earth "can be found in no other
> > way".
> >
> > Newton clearly switched the perception of retrogrades from being
> > plotted motions against the stellar background to an Earth based view
> > and switched the resolution from an orbitally moving Earth to what
> > planetary motions wouldappear like from 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
> >
> > Astronomy cannot support this tragedy which prevents the careful work
> > of astronomers to be destroyed by a casual treatment of precise
> > astronomical methods and insights.I refuse to believe that an
> > astronomer would support a Newtonian view which is creating havoc in
> > areas where an accurate relationship between axial and orbital motions
> > are required .
> >
>
> Oriel36, you know that there are still problems with you not explaining
> yourself clearly on this point. Please do not repeatedlykeep posting until
> you have clarified your explanation of the problem.
As a teacher you would be faced with students who wished to know what
these images represent -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
The images above ,taken by Tunc Tezel, represent the positions of
Jupiter and Saturn taken at two week intervals against the same stellar
background over the course of about a year.This is raw data,something
that was common to both Ptolemaic and heliocentric astronomers however
we now have the luxury of photography.
So OG,given that you are about the explain the greatest astronomical
achievement of Western civilisation to students,are you about to jump
to the Sun as Newton did in order to resolve the plotted motions or
would you prefer to tell your students that when the observed motions
are put in sequence through time lapse footage you can see the Earth
overtaking the slower moving planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
I can see how Newton arrived at his conclusion but you cannot see mine
or at least the one I share with the original heliocentric
astronomers.I can go outside and grasp the heliocentric experience
first hand ,even the undefined views * cannot match how to seperate
axial rotation for the daily cycle and orbital motion for explaining
the observed behavior of the planets is resolved from trying to grasp
what is happening as the Earth moves in its motion around the Sun.
You have nothing to show your students with the Newtonian statement -
"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
Go ahead and try it and you will find yourself either trying to justify
Newton and therefore oppose the Copernican reasoning for seeing
orbital motion around the Sun from an orbitally moving Earth or
affirming the Copernican reasoning that we do see our motion around the
Sun directly by grasping it through our overtaking of the slower moving
planets.
No doubt many polished reputations are oblivious and unconcerned as to
what is occuring here today and may even bet that people are not
competent enough to see how a catastrophic error became a dominant and
destructive force in astronomy.Every single person here gets a chance
to work on this shared astronomical heritage and appreciate just what a
priviledge it really is.
* http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img/retro.gif
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 23:07:12
From: OG
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160943410.650630.297070@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
Not here.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 03:21:45
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160943410.650630.297070@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
>
> Not here.
Having a heavy work schedule for a few weeks,and looking forward to
it,I can leave this topic in your capable hands.A few brief paragraphs
for a general address as your response is certainly not generous.
When you teach students the proper way to treat retrogrades (plotted
positions) and how they are resolved (by being seen from an orbitally
moving Earth),they will love you for the rest of their lives in
sparking an appreciation of astronomy and our astronomical heritage.
Teach them the false Newtonian version of things and they will become
dull and dour creatures who admire only their own reflection.Trying to
convince everyone how hard astronomy is and how it is only understood
by advanced mathematics when nothing is further from the
truth.Astronomy,in its structural modelling form, is basic geometrical
judgements based on physical considerations and can be understood by
teenagers with a little instruction.The more advanced refinements take
a bit of effort but that comes with familiarity with the working
methods.
The causual avenues present an enormous challenge, even without this
hostile enviroment ,but considering that you are working with celestial
sphere geometry for axial and orbital motions there is little point in
addressing this matter beyond immediate concerns for climatological
studies.
The Newtonian conceptions of absolute and relative space are based on
his false version of what retrogrades are and how they are resolved,the
exotic early 20th century conceptions are merely an atttempt to
transfer the core celestial sphere geometry and its linking of axial
rotation to the Ra/Dec system to orbital motion to 'aether/absolute
space'.That is another story in itself.
All in all,there is not much left of the empirical approach to
astronomy except hard lessons but the news is not all that bad.
Cosmological evolutional processes can be returned with more care after
accurate working principles are restored with more attension directed
to grafting the Earth's astronomical motions in with terrestrial topics
of geology and climatology.
Humanity needs heroes and re-discovering the works of Copernicus,Kepler
and those who created the great timekeeping systems is the place to
find them.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:33:22
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
People like Copernicus and Kepler,without the aid of telescopes,could
present the exquiste motions of the Earth and the solar system
structure based on observing from an axially rotating and orbitally
moving Earth.
The problem is that you guys think that magnification allied with
celestial sphere geometry is astronomy but that is an accident of
history.I have presented how the images and time lapse footage of Tunc
Tezel does more for astronomy than a thousand creatures showing photos
of craters of the moon or some other celestial feature.
Not one single person here affirms the Copernican insight based on
plotted positions of the planets against the stellar background,even
when contemporary imaging makes it easy.Whatever insult you think you
are throwing in my direction,as far as I am concerned you insult
yourselves and your own existence.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Those images will continue to mock you for there is only one way to
register the positions of the planets and only one way to explain them.
Perhaps you should buy a microscope and pursue a magnification
exercise where you cannot do much damage.Until it is affirmed that
the Copernican insight correctly concludes planetary motions around
the Sun are seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth ,none of you
can call yourselves astronomers,professional,amateur or bottom line.
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > Oriel36, you know that there are still problems with you not explaining
> > yourself clearly on this point. Please do not repeatedlykeep posting until
> > you have clarified your explanation of the problem.
>
> You might just as well ask the sun not to come up tomorrow. Kill-file
> him like the rest of us have. If it weren't for your replies, we
> wouldn't see Oriel36 at all...
>
> Greg
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:13:09
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: In order to justify Copernicus...
|
Very well stated Mr Oriel! Please tell us more.
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1161020002.169022.108470@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> People like Copernicus and Kepler,without the aid of telescopes,could
> present the exquiste motions of the Earth and the solar system
> structure based on observing from an axially rotating and orbitally
> moving Earth.
>
> The problem is that you guys think that magnification allied with
> celestial sphere geometry is astronomy but that is an accident of
> history.I have presented how the images and time lapse footage of Tunc
> Tezel does more for astronomy than a thousand creatures showing photos
> of craters of the moon or some other celestial feature.
>
> Not one single person here affirms the Copernican insight based on
> plotted positions of the planets against the stellar background,even
> when contemporary imaging makes it easy.Whatever insult you think you
> are throwing in my direction,as far as I am concerned you insult
> yourselves and your own existence.
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> Those images will continue to mock you for there is only one way to
> register the positions of the planets and only one way to explain them.
>
> Perhaps you should buy a microscope and pursue a magnification
> exercise where you cannot do much damage.Until it is affirmed that
> the Copernican insight correctly concludes planetary motions around
> the Sun are seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth ,none of you
> can call yourselves astronomers,professional,amateur or bottom line.
>
>
>
>
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> OG wrote:
>> > Oriel36, you know that there are still problems with you not explaining
>> > yourself clearly on this point. Please do not repeatedlykeep posting
>> > until
>> > you have clarified your explanation of the problem.
>>
>> You might just as well ask the sun not to come up tomorrow. Kill-file
>> him like the rest of us have. If it weren't for your replies, we
>> wouldn't see Oriel36 at all...
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> --
>> Greg Crinklaw
>> Astronomical Software Developer
>> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>>
>> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
>> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
>> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>>
>> To reply take out your eye
>
|
|
