On 4 Dec, 22:24, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:49*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:





On 4 Dec, 13:40, oriel36 wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:03*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 3 Dec, 04:49, oriel36 wrote:

Resolving the issue is far removed from climate topics as the root
cause is empiricism itself,an approach which tried to use timekeeping
averages to model planetary dynamics and solar system structure by
doing something no astronomer would sanction - using the rotation of
the constellations about Polaris to provide a foundation for planetary
dynamics.

You still haven't explained about the "rotation" of the constellations
about Polaris.
The constellations don't rotate about Polaris. But they appear to!.

This has been explained a thousand times and were I to explain it for
another thousand you still would not get that a star returning to a
meridian and consequently the apparent rotation of the constellations
about Polaris can never correlate with constant daily rotation,

Why? You haven't explained this. The obvious explanation is that the
Earth is rotating 360 degrees with every apparent rotation of the
constellations.

There is no such thing as an astronomer who assigns significance to
the rotation of the constellations around Polaris,what it does do is
expose the Ra/Dec distortions which try to do just that.It is
impossible to understand Kepler's work on orbital geometry which
includes a daily rotational component for all plotted data of
planetary motions through the constellations is strictly based on
orbital criteria,including that of our own planet -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Mars_retrog...

The utter stupidity of creating modelling based on timekeeping
averages which assumed Kepler's data is geocentric and then assuming
that placing the Sun in the center makes the apparent retrogrades
disappear as Isaac tried to do,surely people who profess an interest
in astronomy can't be this silly -

"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

Ultimately you are all trapped inside Newton's imagination which I
find too horrible to consider and people can genuinely do better given
that the root cause of this present mess which first created *global
warming through analogy to carbon dioxide in a greenhouse environment
and then morphed it into climate change now that the global
temperature spike has abated.It is not even entertaining for an
astronomer because the maneuvering to make everything fit neatly looks
like an enormous joke and it would be funny if it were not criminal.

Now,I wrote that last response after travelling a long journey and I
could have done better,unlike the guys who work for money and do
nothing,I have to split my time and bear this enormous responsibility
only with the greatest effort as I do something nobody else here does
- I take the guys in the late 17th century seriously as *they made an
assault on the language of astronomy ,the language being geometry.

You haven't produced any explanation of why this is



wrong apart from the fact that you don't like the idea. You need to do
more than this or you'll never get that first convert to your views
that you crave.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have just regurgitated the same pastes. Now explain why the
apparent rotion of the northern constellations around Polaris is so
regular.