On Dec 29, 11:41*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:28:29 -0800 (PST), Anthony Ayiomamitis

wrote:
Sorry Sam but you are not an observational astronomer but simply an astrologer!

Just ask .... Oriel. * LOL!

And neither are you, Anthony. You're just an imager (usually qualified
with some disparaging adjective).


Anthony is perhaps the only Greek from his civilization to propose a
solution for a wandering analemma Sun in the same arena as the
wandering planets which can be explained solely by the Earth's own
orbital motion.I am not flinging insults at Anthony but at least he
should know is that the analemma constitutes a conceptual fudge among
many to make the older 'solar vs sidereal' proposal work and itself an
alternative attempt to explain the Earth's motions.

Rather than attack the man,I simply suggested that he use his
analemmas to set things straight but far from an exercise in
interpretative astronomy,it becomes a harmless exercise using the 24
hour day within the calendar system.He doesn't need to hear this from
me again and neither will I broach the topic again.

Oriel is the first observational astronomer in several hundred years.
Just ask... Oriel!

What set the stage for what became the current strain of empiricism
was an argument that never got resolved from the time of Galileo
regardless of how simplistic readers here might approach the topic
from a 'scientific vs religious' standpoint.From the comments of
Kepler,it is possible to see astronomy was divided into different
facets which strictly demarcated roles -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by
what circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be
depicted on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of
geometers" Kepler


Between the first and the second division is where the problem
exists,the limitations of mechanical/predictive astronomy over
interpretative astronomy or rather,the proofs arising from the
relationship of the positions of planets to the Earth and the proof
that the Earth moves was a valid point of contention at the time of
Galileo and is even more so now in trying to force the clockwork solar
system based on Ra/Dec into the Earth's planetary dynamics and from
there into the celestial arena -

"Two close friends of Galileo, Giovanni Ciampoli and Virginio
Cesarini, were also named to important posts. Cesarini was appointed
Lord Chamberlain, and Ciampoli Secret Chamberlain and Secretary for
the Correspondence with Princes. Under these favourable auspices
Galileo thought the moment had come to renew his campaign for
Copernicanism, and in 1624 he set off for Rome where he had the rare
privilege of being received by the Pope six times in six weeks.
Although the 1616 decree of the Index against Copernicus’ De
Revolutionibus was not suspended, Galileo felt that he could now argue
for the motion of the Earth as long as he avoided declaring that it
was the only system that fitted astronomical observations.

Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini,
while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism
as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two
very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to
deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of
the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical
theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view
that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a
hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet
proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’
position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented
it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially
physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue
undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of
Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They
thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and
Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This
ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair." New Light On The Galileo
Affair

Despite appearances ,I do not intend to pursue this matter much
further for what would be the point,an even more aggressive attempt to
engineer the severance of timekeeping from the Earth's rotation and
orbital motion is bearing down on readers and it really doesn't have
any astronomical content but some vague reference to the year 1820 and
rotation in a 24 hour period.