On May 28, 1:50 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
The motion of the visble stars of our galaxy around a central axis
will change their orientation to the external galaxies,as you
creatures have the visible stars stuck on an astrological framework
there is no possibility of appreciating this great cycle,even in
principle.

.
No. This is not the case.


It is an absolute geometric certainty that you base you concepts on a
astrological/celestial sphere framework -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
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.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

When you are faced with silly quasi-geocentric statements like this
from Newton and especially when he invokes Kepler,you turn to what
Kepler actually said and especially as regards the 'periodic
times'.The periodic times argument is based on orbital comparisons and
it is a fully heliocentric argument in replacing the pre-Copernican
arrangement of the Sun between Venus and Mars with the Earth's orbital
motion.

It goes like this -

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler


Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.


Argument 10


" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Johannes Kepler

I would not wish to use the wonderful argument of Kepler in support of
heliocentricity to be used to counter Newton's twisting of the
periodic times argument for a heliocentric/geocentric orbital
equivalency but at least people can see how the original 'periodic
times ' argument looks.








Of course we can recognize that the "fixed" stars in the Milky Way
galaxy really do move, slowly.

Just as we realize that precession of the equinoxes is a real
phenomenon.

We still use the position of the equinoxes, or the "fixed stars", as a
background, as a reference frame, because they move so slowly that
they serve as *reasonably* fixed landmarks, but, naturally, a closer
approximation to an inertial frame *is* possible through using distant
galaxies as a reference.

Even the galaxies, though, are in motion.


At the core of the Newtonian concepions for orbital motions beats an
astological heart created by Flamsteed.Linking axial rotation directly
to the stellar background is bad enough,the correlation is an
incredible leap by any stretch of the imagination,what encloses it in
a celestial sphere is the fact that a star return in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds of a 24 hour day only in the calendar system where
4 annual orbits are recknoed in a system of 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days.

In short,while Newtonj talked a system of 365.25 days he used
Flamsteed's calendrical framework which in turn amounts to an
astrological framework -

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

You have no reason to be hostile,I have had to go through these
difficult arguments that you can simply skip at will and whatever I
may say about Newton,one thing is certain,the way he reworked
astronomical things to suit his agenda he is consistent and makes it
possible to untangle what is correct from what is not.







But we are talking, as I noted in a previous post, about a matter of a
hundredth of a second per day, even with the largest correction, the
one for precession. The precession cycle takes about 24,000 years.
Compare that with the *one year* cycle that causes the difference
between the 24 hour synodic day and the 23 hour and 56 minute sidereal
day.

If you advocate adopting the system of Tycho Brahe because you are
annoyed that we sometimes ignore the small precession effect, you are
straining out a gnat yet swallowing a camel. If that is not what you
are doing, then your point is still a mystery to me.

John Savard

The preccessional motion of the Earth is always,always,always the
most used to muddy the waters while the most immediate axial and
orbital motions are ignored,it is like an indoctrinated thumbsucking
tactic to call on preccession and for the most part it works.I can
simply compare the faster orbital motion of the Earth against the
slower motion of the outer planets to remove 3 centuries worth of
Newtonian rubbish but apparently nobody is interested -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Without appreciating what is occuring from a moving Earth you cannot
admire the Keplerian refinement which uses the orbital motion of the
Earth against that of Mars or the Romerian insight on finite light
distance which uses the orbital motion of the Earth against Jupiter.

You can bluff and bluster for 3 centuries,indeed you can do it for
another 3 centuries but ultimately it is not worth it.I have to find a
group who actually likes astronomy,its methids and its insights in
order to make the neccessary modifications.I cannot do in in an
empirical/astrological forum and that is that.