All the self-regarding hype of mathematicians here in this newsgroup is based on a single mistake that distinguishes timekeeping astronomy from the astronomy where perspectives come into play. To be fair, the nature of the mistake was difficult to spot within the framework on which a Sun centered system and a moving Earth was constructed and therein existed a problem exploited by mathematicians as they originally tried to equate timekeeping predictions in astronomy with predictions found in experiments.

The system of predictions for astronomical events is based on 1461 days/rotations to four orbital circuits formatted in the calendar framework of 365/366 days/rotations. It is immediately apparent that a year does not correspond to one orbit of the Earth around the Sun as the equivalent number of rotations does not match one of the four circuits. What muddied the water was when the first accurate clocks emerged and the Equation of Time was not linked to the calendar format as it should but unfortunately linked directly to one orbital period as fractional days and rotations -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Aequation.." Huygens

On this basis Newton created his contrived absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions by assuming apparent/true motions to observations and especially direct/retrogrades. I doubt very much if another individual is capable of dealing with the tangle of difference references which constitute restrictions to productive and creative research but if there is I haven't come across them.

It really is worth the effort to untangle falsehoods from facts and perhaps long, long overdue.