A fresh start

It is true that there has been little success so far in exposing the limitations of the clockwork solar system and its tenuous links to astronomy via experimental sciences. I understand the allegiance to the historical icons, however, researchers would not be starting from the beginning but simply dropping a narrative and looking at dynamics with fresh eyes. For instance, the solar system's galactic orbital motion may influence variations in planetary speeds as the Sun is not stationary in this framework but moving in one direction whereas the planets change direction with and against galactic orbital motion.

The jewel in the experimentalist crown is Kepler's loose correlation between planetary distance and orbital period but this correlation says nothing about an individual planet's orbit, it just presents a relative correlation between planetary orbits -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

In more technical language, this low grade insight which can't be used for the inner planets, is expressed like so -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler


Coming to the experimentalist view of this statement exposes something that is immediately wrong and a distortion of Kepler's statement -

"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.... 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


The axiom that the Earth orbits the Sun is based on the motion of the Sun through the constellations in 365 days whereas the axiom that the Earth rotates daily is that the Sun appears to travel around the Earth. The experimentalist view is trying to replace an orbital observation (sun/earth through the constellations) with a daily rotational one.


For my part it would be just as productive if consideration was given to the perspective that the solar system's galactic orbital motion may influence planetary orbital traits from a top down view ( opposite to experimentalist view). It is also more important that genuine researchers be seen to undo a lot of damage by promoting new approaches rather than dealing with old errors and distortions.

The antecedent framework which overlaps geocentric and heliocentric astronomy was based on the motions of the Sun and planets through the constellations where the Sun moved directly whereas the planets wandered against the same background -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.luce...n_ecliptic.gif

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

The benefits of this system in both geocentric and early heliocentric astronomy is that it predicts astronomical events like eclipses as dates within the calendar system.

When accurate clocks started to emerge, these benefits were extended to exact times of astronomical events within the 24 hour day and calendar system but the trade-off was that the Sun also wandered with the planets through the same background stars within a celestial sphere format -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.luce...solar_year.gif

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2-TtcfmbrkI/maxresdefault.jpg


Projecting the Earth's rotational characteristics along with the 24 hour system as RA/Dec although the Lat/Long system takes priority for modeling remains the main issue to deconstruct and re-construct, however, the timelapse of a central Sun, the actual change in position of the stars to the orbital plane due to the Earth's orbital motion (minus daily rotation) and brand new perspective should bring colour back to astronomy.

The concerns of cosmologists, empirical astronomers and theorists may be back at pondering about 'big bang' concerns but the real substance is back at the beginning of heliocentricity where a number of major adjustments are necessary to bring it up to the level of space age imaging.

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 3:29:55 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

In more technical language, this low grade insight which can't be used for the inner planets, is expressed like so -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

It applies just fine to the time the inner planets take to orbit the Sun. From
the viewpoint of the Earth, maybe the "periodic times" of all the inner planets
are one Earth year, but that's just an illusion.

I shouldn't have to tell you to be Copernican and not geocentric!

John Savard

These nuisances must believe I am desperate for conversation so they come here fresh from a science fiction group or their video games and won't leave the descriptions untouched which is the real nuisance. They should heed the advice of bullies and stay clear but often the completely hapless don't have the discipline that adults have and basically scribble graffiti on a thread in the same way vandals and thugs would on physical property.

That being said, this is an unmoderated forum where people are responsible for their own discipline and generally it has worked out over the years so there is now little crossover from the concerns of theorists and magnification hobbyists and what I do - that is the way it should be and hard earned over the years.

It is great that this newsgroup exists as a conduit for an astronomy that has yet to come into its own. We can now see what goes on in the inner solar system with a stationary Sun and though vastly different from the motions of Jupiter's satellites around their parent planet, the motion of Mercury in the present timelapse from right to left will eventually return as a motion from left to right in a number of weeks -

https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data...current_c3.gif


This is not an exercise of throwing valuable information after bad, the imaging exists free and clear of any distortion introduced by empirical theorists nor any deficiency on my part - the analogy of the motion of Mercury above is found in timelapses of moons around their parent planet -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZEgoJasPQ&t=91s


Let the dogs bark away, that is all they are good for but among those who genuinely have a feeling for our solar system, they can look out in the direction of the Sun and know these things happen.