Astronomical working principles

The astronomical working principles which Newton used in applying his
ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion originated with Flamsteed
rather than with the methods and principles of Kepler and
Copernicus.In order to justify the relationship between terrestial
longitudes and the return of a star in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,Flamsteed
forced the 3 min 56 sec difference into a .986 deg orbital displacement
-

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG

This calendrically driven ( 1461 day cycle) justification allowed
Newton to propose the AU for mean Sun/Earth distances in order to refer
planetary motion to the Sun and overlay the terrestial ballistics
agenda on Keplerian orbital geometry.It sounds great and gives the
correct answer for lengthening and shortening of orbital distances
however,like a bell with a crack in it,it i does not sound right as it
is impossible to reconcile the sidereal justification with an
elliptical framework as a constant .986 deg displacement generates the
ugly spectacle of the Earth travelling faster at the aphelion and
slower at the perihelion.

Standing further back from the technical geometric specifics it is
possible to recognise that the astronomical working principles
condition all ahead of it and Newton,while appearing to generate a
successful resolution for Keplerian geometry, sowed the seeds for the
contemporary situation of ad hoc resolutions for cosmological
structures and motion that do not fit together at all.Newtonian working
astronomical principles force the situation where the solar system's
planetary motion was isolated from any other influencing factor such as
the solar system's galactic orbital motion -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton

In itself,the 17th century attempt to explain Keplerian orbital
geometry and motion was not a bad attempt and who can blame anyone
for trying ,no less Newton.However,the working astronomical principles
which he overlaid on Keplerian geometry had no basis or roots beyond
Flamsteed and these now prove to be deficient and obstructive for 21st
century observational data,not just in astronomy but in evolutionary
geology and climatology as well.

Favorable conditions have emerged through responsible people ,working
against the difficulties imposed by theoretical considerations,
forcing astronomical observations to the forefront and frame the
problem in terms where they actually mirror in some way the Keplerian
refinements of Copernican heliocentricity.The situation is so delicate
that even I am reluctant to present anything other than an appeal to
return to the original working principles which are creating so many
conflicting yet interesting observations.The theoretical response will
be to throw as much guesswork at explaining the observations as per
usual,however those who would wish to see a more productive
approach,have a chance to revisit Keplerian geometry with the influence
of the solar system's galactic orbital motion on planetary heliocentric
motion.

The Copernican/Keplerian astronomical working principles of axial and
orbital motion in isolation in contrast to the homogenised
calendrically driven Flamsteed/Newtonian principles is at the roots of
a specific resolution in order to work with structure and motion beyond
the solar system.Without it,people will suffer a new version of phony
20th century pondering .

What a repetitive bore this troll is.

oriel36 wrote:
The astronomical working principles which Newton used in applying his
ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion originated with Flamsteed
rather than with the methods and principles of Kepler and
Copernicus.In order to justify the relationship between terrestial
longitudes and the return of a star in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,Flamsteed
forced the 3 min 56 sec difference into a .986 deg orbital displacement
snip the rubbish.....

There are now two types of investigators out there,the dignified people
who see a genuine conflict with the ad hoc solutions of dark energy and
dark matter in accounting for visible observations andf the other
exotic multiple universe type guys associated with the early 20th
century concepts .

No problem that you consider the exact location of the obstacle to be
boring,as Newton sold the shop in explaining Keplerian motion by
isolating the solar system thereby shortcircuiting any other external
influence, such as the solar system's galactic orbital motion, he
forces you into piling ad hoc 'dark' setpieces on top of each other .

Nobody can do anything without first correcting the original Newtonian
solution for heliocentricity and the way he overlaid his ballistic
agenda on Keplerian orbital geometry.Until then scientists may as well
appeal to multi dimensional branes or heaven knows what to account for
visible phenomena.I have done what is neccessary to point out just how
limiting the 17th century attempt to explain Keplerian motion was and
far from being boring, Newton poves to be one ingenious operator in
manipulating data,incorrect though it may be.

It is not a matter of being wrong with conclusions,the underlying
roots of the working principles of Newton do not go further than
Flamsteed and as such,provide a quick fix or ad hoc solution for
Keplerian geometry while shutting off any other influence.If the
genuine guys can live with that then they undo their good work in
framing the contemporary problems in a decent way.

It is not my problem,at least not any longer,it belongs to those
genuine investigators of celestial motion and structure and good luck
to them.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

oriel36 wrote:
There are now two types of investigators out there,the dignified people
who see a genuine conflict with the ad hoc solutions of dark energy and
dark matter in accounting for visible observations andf the other
exotic multiple universe type guys associated with the early 20th
century concepts .

anti-troll snip