| |
Main
Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:18:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
Neither Copernicus nor Kepler required telescopes to come up with the
arrangement of planets around the Sun nor the accurate orbital
geometries which emerged as a refinement of the solar system
structure.Only good judgement was required to resolve the observed
motion of the planets by using plotted data against the stellar
background (including retrogrades).
What an opportunity for somebody to affirm Copernican reasoning by
using Io and its shadow cast on Jupiter -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9904/ioshadowc_hst_big.jpg
http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/images/jupmoons4.jpg
The change in the position of the shadow on Jupiter in respect to the
position of Io is due to the way the Earth is moving towards and away
from Jupiter in our respective orbital motions around the Sun.
Why stay with 'transits' of Io crossing the face of Jupiter when there
is an opportunity to promote the Earth's orbital motion along with
Jupiter's.
This is astronomy and it is easy and enjoyable for anyone who wishes to
promote astronomy with just a little effort.
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:00:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
> > Well, we ain't buyin' whatever you're sellin'...get on home...I hear
> > your mama callin'...
>
> I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
> sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
> got it wrong, and *he* knew the *true* meaning of Copernicanism, as
> Kepler did, and so on.
>
Using Io's shadow is another easy and enjoyable way to affirm that we
see planetary orbital motion around the Sun from an orbitally moving
Earth -
http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/images/jupmoons4.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9904/ioshadowc_hst_big.jpg
As you adhere to a corrupt Newtonian view,you are unlikely to
appreciate the distinction between the shadow,as cast on Jupiter by the
central star, appearing to the left of Io and to the right of Io,a
consequence of viewing a slower moving Jupiter from a faster the
orbitally moving Earth
> But I still haven't been able to figure out exactly what he was objecting to in our conventional understanding of the Solar System. Had
> I been able to find the semantic content of his objections, I might
> have been able to explain why there was an error or misunderstanding
> that led him to the wrong conclusion that things somehow went wrong
> since Newton.
>
> John Savard
The following Newtonian view is not just wrong,the information loss
is catastrophic -
"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
So John,we work everything out from and by an orbitally moving Earth
and do not need to jump to the Sun to explain our motion along with the
other planets around the Sun.
|
| |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 18:53:32
From:
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Well, we ain't buyin' whatever you're sellin'...get on home...I hear
> your mama callin'...
I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
got it wrong, and *he* knew the *true* meaning of Copernicanism, as
Kepler did, and so on.
But I still haven't been able to figure out exactly what he was
objecting to in our conventional understanding of the Solar System. Had
I been able to find the semantic content of his objections, I might
have been able to explain why there was an error or misunderstanding
that led him to the wrong conclusion that things somehow went wrong
since Newton.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 05:24:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
On 1 Dec 2006 18:53:32 -0800, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
>sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
>got it wrong, and *he* knew the *true* meaning of Copernicanism, as
>Kepler did, and so on.
>
>But I still haven't been able to figure out exactly what he was
>objecting to in our conventional understanding of the Solar System. Had
>I been able to find the semantic content of his objections, I might
>have been able to explain why there was an error or misunderstanding
>that led him to the wrong conclusion that things somehow went wrong
>since Newton.
That's typical of schizophrenic ramblings (many people with this
disorder are otherwise quite intelligent)- individual sentences sound
reasonable, but when you put it all together any real understanding lies
beyond your grasp. Regardless of your understanding (or lack thereof) of
his arguments, you'll never convince him of his errors- his mind is
entirely closed to any reasonable argument. Maybe if he was properly
medicated, but that pretty obviously in not the case.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:25:54
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote in news:1165028012.204414.270720
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>> Well, we ain't buyin' whatever you're sellin'...get on home...I hear
>> your mama callin'...
>
> I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
> sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
I am relieved. Same here, and I did try to get his point. I thought I was
just too dumb to get it.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 02:26:43
From:
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
>
>
>jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote in news:1165028012.204414.270720
>@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> RMOLLISE wrote:
>>> Well, we ain't buyin' whatever you're sellin'...get on home...I hear
>>> your mama callin'...
>>
>> I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
>> sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
>
>I am relieved. Same here, and I did try to get his point. I thought I was
>just too dumb to get it.
You are responding to a cmputer program, not a human. This is
easily established by simply asking the "oriel36" to add two
plus two -- a capability far beyond its simple programming.
Please don't waste everone's time by replying further.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:57:31
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
On 02 Dec 2006 18:25:54 GMT, Pierre Vandevenne <pierre@data_rescue.be >
wrote:
>I am relieved. Same here, and I did try to get his point. I thought I was
>just too dumb to get it.
If you start getting his point, it's time to worry... <g >
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:09:07
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
What's wrong, Oriole? Why are you trying to make nice with us
"catalogue astronomers" and "astrophotographers" now?
Well, we ain't buyin' whatever you're sellin'...get on home...I hear
your mama callin'...
:-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
oriel36 wrote:
> What an opportunity for somebody to affirm Copernican reasoning by
> using Io and its shadow cast on Jupiter -
>
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 11:19:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 02 Dec 2006 18:25:54 GMT, Pierre Vandevenne <pierre@data_rescue.be>
> wrote:
>
> >I am relieved. Same here, and I did try to get his point. I thought I was
> >just too dumb to get it.
>
> If you start getting his point, it's time to worry... <g>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
A once in a lifetime astronomical occurence will happen in 2012 when
the faster Venus will overtake the slower Earth with the central star
as a backdrop.Considering that nobody made an attempt to promote how
Mercury did the same thing a few weeks ago as another and more dramatic
way to appreciate heliocentricity.
Of course you do not get the point with the motion of Mercury that we
see orbital motions from a moving Earth nor with Io's shadow to affirm
the same principle of the Earth and Jupiter's motions but then again
you do not seem to believe in anything but magnification.
So,rot with the Newtonian conception of what we see when we look out at
the planets or enjoy what new technoilogy can do to the original
astronomical insights of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer.
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:49:18
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote in news:1165028012.204414.270720
> @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > RMOLLISE wrote:
> >> Well, we ain't buyin' whatever you're sellin'...get on home...I hear
> >> your mama callin'...
> >
> > I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
> > sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
>
> I am relieved. Same here, and I did try to get his point. I thought I was
> just too dumb to get it.
Intuitive intelligence is that faculty which can almost instantly
affirm whether a concept is correct or not and in the case of the false
Newtonian conception for retrogrades and their resolution,any
participant here can judge whether he is correct or not without much
fuss.
"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
Retrogrades are plotted positions of the planets as they move against
the background stars where the planet appears to stop and g obackwards
and then forwards again -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
Copernicus reasoned that when seen from an orbitally moving Earth,the
slower forward motion of Jupiter and the even slower Saturn causes them
to temporarily fall behind as the faster Earth,in an inner orbital
circuit overtakes them -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
It has been quite a while since I got hold of the actual Jupiter/Saturn
images and the time lapse footage of Tunc Tezel but it makes
understanding the Copernican reasoning exceptionally easy to
understand.Those who lack intuitive intelligence fail to see the faster
Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets just as a few weeks
ago,they failed to appreciate the faster Mercury overtaking the Earth
with the central star as a backdrop.
You do not get the point indeed,the refuge of many like you who have
nothing to offer but the same old treadmill of celestial sphere
geometry.
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:32:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2006 18:53:32 -0800, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >I still have absolutely no idea _what_ he *was* "selling". Yes, he
> >sounded like a crackpot, saying that the orthodox astronomers had all
> >got it wrong, and *he* knew the *true* meaning of Copernicanism, as
> >Kepler did, and so on.
> >
> >But I still haven't been able to figure out exactly what he was
> >objecting to in our conventional understanding of the Solar System. Had
> >I been able to find the semantic content of his objections, I might
> >have been able to explain why there was an error or misunderstanding
> >that led him to the wrong conclusion that things somehow went wrong
> >since Newton.
>
> That's typical of schizophrenic ramblings (many people with this
> disorder are otherwise quite intelligent)- individual sentences sound
> reasonable, but when you put it all together any real understanding lies
> beyond your grasp. Regardless of your understanding (or lack thereof) of
> his arguments, you'll never convince him of his errors- his mind is
> entirely closed to any reasonable argument. Maybe if he was properly
> medicated, but that pretty obviously in not the case.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
I have no intention of becoming involved with people who have no
intuitive intelligence and especially when it is so easy to use
contemporary technology to affirm basic Copernican reasoning .
You do not like how Io and the shadow it casts on Jupiter is another
way to affirm our motion along with Jupiter's around the Sun and that
is fine but I have lno interest in what you think and present these new
ways to understand very old and very much abused concepts.
The celestial arena in which the motions of the planets of the solar
system is magnificent enough to continue looking for people who have
the wits and the courage to leave the exotic wordplays of empiricism
behind and to restore the original insights based on affirming
heliocentricity from an orbitally moving Earth.Notwithstanding that
modern imaging technology makes the whole thing blossom and easy to
grasp,it is surprising that not even one individual affirmed that we
see motions of the planets around the Sun from a moving Earth,the basic
tenet of heliocentricity.
Stupidity may be that people are repulsed into believing that they have
to agree with me but all I am doing is meshing modern imaging with the
original Copernican/Keplerian texts and expanding on their work which
was built on resolving plotted retrogrades.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 16:20:51
From: AM
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I have no intention of becoming involved with people
You could have stopped right there gerald.
Because this is your real intention. You are
scared to get involved with people. So you
just spout the nonsense you do......
Dont worry. Even though you are a loon, and a kook
we still love you.
AM
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:01:38
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
AM wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > I am
> > certainly no stranger to this isolation
>
>
>
> And why are we not surprised......
>
>
> Sorry gerald, your E value (entertainment)
> is back to zero again, so off you go.
> Dont worry, you are in good company...
>
I do mind that the great works of Copernicus and Kepler were destroyed
to make way for the 17th century convenience of the celestial sphere
Ra/Dec system with a little terrestrial ballistics thrown in.
The experience of the great Western insights is not for those seeking
the entertainment value of a celestial sphere peep show,it is for those
who are aware just how much the motions of the Earth around our central
star make existence possible ,even those miserable existences who spend
their time destroying what they cannot understand.
Those great cyclical motions which our ancestors for remote antiquity
appreciated and promoted in their monuments while you are stuck in a
contrived mechanical solar system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days.Only the guys with telescopes loved the Newtonian
system because it exempted them from doing true astronomy and left them
to believe that they are astronomers by virtue of magnification.
You think you can buy your way into astronomy but astronomy is only for
those who can develop their intuitive intelligence -
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [viasplanetarum
apparentes] and the record of their motions is especiallythe 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 circleand lines correct
images of those true motions may be depicted onpaper is the concern of
the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
I have imaging technology on my side to promote the original working
principles of Copernicus and Kepler based on distinguishing the
observed motion of the planets against the stellar background from
their genuine paths based on an orbitally moving Earth.
What you have is pure junk -
"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
>
>
>
>
>
> AM
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 11:35:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
AM wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > I have no intention of becoming involved with people
>
>
>
>
> You could have stopped right there gerald.
> Because this is your real intention. You are
> scared to get involved with people. So you
> just spout the nonsense you do......
>
Allow me to demonstrate,in brief outlines, what contemporary astronomy
can do with imaging.There is nothing remotely controversial about
using the subtle variations in the position of Io's shadow ,sometimes
to the left of Io and sometimes to the right -
http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/images/jupmoons4.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9904/ioshadowc_hst_big.jpg
The central star casts Io's shadow on Jupiter and the orbital motions
of Jupiter and the Earth around the Sun do the rest.Teenagers and
adults would love this easy way to affirm our orbital motion rather
than being stuck with uninspiring 'transits' which have really no
information.
> Dont worry. Even though you are a loon, and a kook
> we still love you.
>
>
My turn.
In an industry that cannot afford mistakes with very unforgiving
material,I know all to well the great minds that can deal with
technical difficulties and resolve them with little fuss.At my
disposal ,as an astronomer,are the great technological developments of
imaging which make promoting the great Western astronomical
achievements such an easy and enjoyable thing to do yet there appears
to be no capable minds of dealing with even the most basic astronomical
material being brought up.You call me one thing or another but I am
certainly no stranger to this isolation and I assure you that whatever
insults you fling in this direction,the lack of responses to new
material such as using Io's shadow to affirm heliocentricity is the
only insult I know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AM
|
| | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 14:45:56
From: AM
Subject: Re: Using contemporary telescopes to affirm heliocentricity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I am
> certainly no stranger to this isolation
And why are we not surprised......
Sorry gerald, your E value (entertainment)
is back to zero again, so off you go.
Dont worry, you are in good company...
AM
|
|
