View Single Post
  #7  
Old September 19th 05, 10:58 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To Kurt

To resolve the apparent anomaly in the speed of the spacecraft and
subsequently the variations in projected distance travelled against
actual distance would require an re-alignment of most of astronomic
principles back to their original heliocentric format.

The major obstacle exists with the introduction of an alternative
explanation for retrograde motions by Newton in contrast to the
explanations of astronomers such as Galileo and Rheticus who refer
retrograde motions from the faster Earth taking an inner orbital
circuit against the apparent retrogrades of Mars,Jupiter and Saturn (1)
-

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif

The original heliocentric insight did not require a resolution that is
speculative in nature and which constitutes the Newtonian line of
reasoning based on an observer on the Sun -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."

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


Like Kepler before him,Ole Roemer who give us the insight on finite
light distance worked off the anomalistic motion of Io as seen from
the Earth's orbital motion but as anyone can see from the Newtonian
explanation,the 'finite light' insight is completely anonymous in
Newton's explanation as he cobbles or rather mangles together the
Keplerian insight with the Roemerian insight.

It is an enormous task to make a necessary re-alignment of astronomic
principles even for those focused on the matter and it would be an
injustice to imagine otherwise.












(1)

Salviati

Sagredo, you will see them come about in such a way that the theory of
this alone ought to be enough to gain assent for the rest of the
doctrine from anyone who is neither stubborn nor unteachable. I tell
you, then, that no change occurs in the movement of Saturn in thirty
years, in that of Jupiter in twelve, that of Mars in two, Venus in nine
months, or in that of Mercury in about eighty days. The annual movement
of the Earth alone, between Mars and Venus, causes all the apparent
irregularities of the five stars named. . . . (explains Jupiter's
motion, then follows with)

Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars
also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in
Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth
overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion
being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time
in catching up with it.

Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that
of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due
not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion
of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems