|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
In a purely technical sense the issue would be the structure of observations and conclusions drawn from those observations which would comprise the central issue of any resolution between the predictive side of astronomy and the demonstrative or interpretative side of astronomy.
It is true that the Galileo affair brought out the issue of Biblical interpretation using apparent motions against factual actual motions which ultimately created this science vs religion environment however this important issue tends to disguise problems which all sides were unsure of and,in truth, couldn't be dealt with until late in the last century or this century. Everything from the current messes surrounding planetary definition, ignorance of the leap day as it serves planetary dynamics and their traits, climate change and all sorts of modeling/predicting is wrapped up in the technical issues nobody ,at least those of any relevance, wants to deal with or are content to leave historical characters as figurines acting out ideologies to suit present agendas whether it is attacking denominational Christianity or promoting voodoo and junk under the name of astronomy. The issues should be fascinating for anyone who looks to astronomy beyond astrophotography or 'stargazers' as they call themselves but I haven't seen anyone come close to what is necessary to deal with refreshing astronomy as a pursuit that encompasses other sciences. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
oriel36 wrote:
In a purely technical sense the issue would be the structure of observations and conclusions drawn from those observations which would comprise the central issue of any resolution between the predictive side of astronomy and the demonstrative or interpretative side of astronomy. It is true that the Galileo affair brought out the issue of Biblical interpretation using apparent motions against factual actual motions which ultimately created this science vs religion environment however this important issue tends to disguise problems which all sides were unsure of and,in truth, couldn't be dealt with until late in the last century or this century. Everything from the current messes surrounding planetary definition, ignorance of the leap day as it serves planetary dynamics and their traits, climate change and all sorts of modeling/predicting is wrapped up in the technical issues nobody ,at least those of any relevance, wants to deal with or are content to leave historical characters as figurines acting out ideologies to suit present agendas whether it is attacking denominational Christianity or promoting voodoo and junk under the name of astronomy. The issues should be fascinating for anyone who looks to astronomy beyond astrophotography or 'stargazers' as they call themselves but I haven't seen anyone come close to what is necessary to deal with refreshing astronomy as a pursuit that encompasses other sciences. Easy definition of a planet: A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massiveenough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. If you had asked Galileo or Copernicus whether Pluto was a planet they would have said "What are you talking about" If you asked an ancient Greek they would have said "You cant see it so how can it be a planet" No mess here. Just you being anachronistic. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:27:04 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
No mess here. Just you being anachronistic. The 'definitional' mess is due to the lack of astronomers insofar as any lover of the celestial arena would never have required a planet to be isolated outside the original context of their 'wandering' motions. How delicate the partitioning between inner and outer planets as they wander against the background stars from two different perspective but these insights are so fragile that they vanish for the crude observers like yourselves who never encountered an astronomical fact that your cult didn't destroy.. The line-of-sight observation as the orbital motion of the Earth through space generates a picture where the stars move behind the Sun in sequence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ The planets follow roughly the same route as those stars as they move along their orbital plane but the inner planets wander against the direction of the background stars as they emerge from the Sun and enter back into the Sun having reached their widest point from the Sun as seen from a moving Earth and then move in the direction of the stars for the other half of their orbits as the inner planets move in front of the central Sun - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A You have already disgraced yourself enough by putting the Sun in circumpolar motion when the ancient astronomers up to the time of Copernicus used the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations only as an orbital feature - "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 To resolve inner planetary retrogrades the more productive line-of-sight motion of the stars behind the central Sun is required in order to create the magnificent grandstand view of the motion of the inner planets as seen from Earth . Any other era and this would be a wonderful occasion which adds to the achievement of the first heliocentric astronomers so I enjoy the insight alone and in honor of those men and perhaps the experience of using new tools at a time when others can't. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:27:04 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote: No mess here. Just you being anachronistic. The 'definitional' mess is due to the lack of astronomers insofar as any lover of the celestial arena would never have required a planet to be isolated outside the original context of their 'wandering' motions. How delicate the partitioning between inner and outer planets as they wander against the background stars from two different perspective but these insights are so fragile that they vanish for the crude observers like yourselves who never encountered an astronomical fact that your cult didn't destroy. The planets don't wander around against the background stars. They orbit the Sun. There are no fragile insights. Just predictable motions which are obvious to all those who are capable of appreciating three dimensions - that doesn't include you with your green cats. The line-of-sight observation as the orbital motion of the Earth through space generates a picture where the stars move behind the Sun in sequence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ The planets follow roughly the same route as those stars as they move along their orbital plane but the inner planets wander against the direction of the background stars as they emerge from the Sun and enter back into the Sun having reached their widest point from the Sun as seen from a moving Earth and then move in the direction of the stars for the other half of their orbits as the inner planets move in front of the central Sun - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A You have already disgraced yourself enough by putting the Sun in circumpolar motion when the ancient astronomers up to the time of Copernicus used the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations only as an orbital feature - But they were wrong. It's the Earth which orbits, not the Sun. "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 To resolve inner planetary retrogrades the more productive line-of-sight motion of the stars behind the central Sun is required in order to create the magnificent grandstand view of the motion of the inner planets as seen from Earth . To explain the retrogrades all that's needed is the ability to visualise in three dimensions - which you don't possess. Any other era and this would be a wonderful occasion which adds to the achievement of the first heliocentric astronomers so I enjoy the insight alone and in honor of those men and perhaps the experience of using new tools at a time when others can't. In any other era you would be derided as a bloody minded idiot who refused to see reason. No different to today. You should stop believing in magic. The universe is as it is. We observe it and formulate laws which describe how it functions. You get confused between laws of nature and human laws. We don't tell the planets what to do, we just deduce how they do it. Then we can see if the planets behave as those laws predict. If they don't we are wrong and must try again. You however just ignore inconvenient facts. You also decide that the whole world is conspiring to deceive you and with no perceptible motive. Does this sound like madness to you? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:27:04 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap: Easy definition of a planet: A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massiveenough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. If you had asked Galileo or Copernicus whether Pluto was a planet they would have said "What are you talking about" If you asked an ancient Greek they would have said "You cant see it so how can it be a planet" I thought Pluto was Donald Duck's dog. Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:27:04 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins wrote this crap: Easy definition of a planet: A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massiveenough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. If you had asked Galileo or Copernicus whether Pluto was a planet they would have said "What are you talking about" If you asked an ancient Greek they would have said "You cant see it so how can it be a planet" I thought Pluto was Donald Duck's dog. So you don't know about cartoons either. Pluto was Mickey Mouse's dog. Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:41:44 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote: On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:27:04 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote: No mess here. Just you being anachronistic. The 'definitional' mess is due to the lack of astronomers insofar as any lover of the celestial arena would never have required a planet to be isolated outside the original context of their 'wandering' motions. How delicate the partitioning between inner and outer planets as they wander against the background stars from two different perspective but these insights are so fragile that they vanish for the crude observers like yourselves who never encountered an astronomical fact that your cult didn't destroy. The planets don't wander around against the background stars. They orbit the Sun. There are no fragile insights. Just predictable motions which are obvious to all those who are capable of appreciating three dimensions - that doesn't include you with your green cats. The line-of-sight observation as the orbital motion of the Earth through space generates a picture where the stars move behind the Sun in sequence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ The planets follow roughly the same route as those stars as they move along their orbital plane but the inner planets wander against the direction of the background stars as they emerge from the Sun and enter back into the Sun having reached their widest point from the Sun as seen from a moving Earth and then move in the direction of the stars for the other half of their orbits as the inner planets move in front of the central Sun - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A You have already disgraced yourself enough by putting the Sun in circumpolar motion when the ancient astronomers up to the time of Copernicus used the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations only as an orbital feature - But they were wrong. It's the Earth which orbits, not the Sun. The working principles of astronomy at the time of Copernicus and Kepler used the apparent motions of the planets and Sun together through the Zodiac to ascertain the time it took the planets and Sun to make a circuit through the background stars hence they switched the position of the Sun with the orbital motion of the Earth and determined the Sun was stationary - " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687 days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth but the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running around the Sun." Kepler What I have done is different to the older astronomers by virtue of adjusting perspectives to suit inner and outer planetary retrogrades and separate resolutions. It is a genuine achievement whether people choose to recognize it or not but then again you poor empiricists never understood your own system let alone the working principles of astronomers. Wish somebody else would begin to use contemporary tools and start to enjoy these things as I have done for so long. "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 To resolve inner planetary retrogrades the more productive line-of-sight motion of the stars behind the central Sun is required in order to create the magnificent grandstand view of the motion of the inner planets as seen from Earth . To explain the retrogrades all that's needed is the ability to visualise in three dimensions - which you don't possess. Any other era and this would be a wonderful occasion which adds to the achievement of the first heliocentric astronomers so I enjoy the insight alone and in honor of those men and perhaps the experience of using new tools at a time when others can't. In any other era you would be derided as a bloody minded idiot who refused to see reason. No different to today. You should stop believing in magic. The universe is as it is. We observe it and formulate laws which describe how it functions. You get confused between laws of nature and human laws. We don't tell the planets what to do, we just deduce how they do it. Then we can see if the planets behave as those laws predict. If they don't we are wrong and must try again. You however just ignore inconvenient facts. You also decide that the whole world is conspiring to deceive you and with no perceptible motive. Does this sound like madness to you? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:41:44 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:27:04 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote: No mess here. Just you being anachronistic. The 'definitional' mess is due to the lack of astronomers insofar as any lover of the celestial arena would never have required a planet to be isolated outside the original context of their 'wandering' motions. How delicate the partitioning between inner and outer planets as they wander against the background stars from two different perspective but these insights are so fragile that they vanish for the crude observers like yourselves who never encountered an astronomical fact that your cult didn't destroy. The planets don't wander around against the background stars. They orbit the Sun. There are no fragile insights. Just predictable motions which are obvious to all those who are capable of appreciating three dimensions - that doesn't include you with your green cats. The line-of-sight observation as the orbital motion of the Earth through space generates a picture where the stars move behind the Sun in sequence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ The planets follow roughly the same route as those stars as they move along their orbital plane but the inner planets wander against the direction of the background stars as they emerge from the Sun and enter back into the Sun having reached their widest point from the Sun as seen from a moving Earth and then move in the direction of the stars for the other half of their orbits as the inner planets move in front of the central Sun - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A You have already disgraced yourself enough by putting the Sun in circumpolar motion when the ancient astronomers up to the time of Copernicus used the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations only as an orbital feature - But they were wrong. It's the Earth which orbits, not the Sun. The working principles of astronomy at the time of Copernicus and Kepler used the apparent motions of the planets and Sun together through the Zodiac to ascertain the time it took the planets and Sun to make a circuit through the background stars hence they switched the position of the Sun with the orbital motion of the Earth and determined the Sun was stationary - " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687 days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth but the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running around the Sun." Kepler What I have done is different to the older astronomers by virtue of adjusting perspectives to suit inner and outer planetary retrogrades and separate resolutions. It is a genuine achievement whether people choose to recognize it or not but then again you poor empiricists never understood your own system let alone the working principles of astronomers. What you have done is different to older astronomers. They were often right, You are rarely right Wish somebody else would begin to use contemporary tools and start to enjoy these things as I have done for so long. No! Your flawed perceptions stopped you perceiving what is obvious to us. when you eventually come across some simple YouTube video you then misunderstand it and think you have discovered something new. "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 To resolve inner planetary retrogrades the more productive line-of-sight motion of the stars behind the central Sun is required in order to create the magnificent grandstand view of the motion of the inner planets as seen from Earth . To explain the retrogrades all that's needed is the ability to visualise in three dimensions - which you don't possess. Any other era and this would be a wonderful occasion which adds to the achievement of the first heliocentric astronomers so I enjoy the insight alone and in honor of those men and perhaps the experience of using new tools at a time when others can't. In any other era you would be derided as a bloody minded idiot who refused to see reason. No different to today. You should stop believing in magic. The universe is as it is. We observe it and formulate laws which describe how it functions. You get confused between laws of nature and human laws. We don't tell the planets what to do, we just deduce how they do it. Then we can see if the planets behave as those laws predict. If they don't we are wrong and must try again. You however just ignore inconvenient facts. You also decide that the whole world is conspiring to deceive you and with no perceptible motive. Does this sound like madness to you? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:59:21 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap: Lord Vath wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:27:04 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins wrote this crap: Easy definition of a planet: A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massiveenough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. If you had asked Galileo or Copernicus whether Pluto was a planet they would have said "What are you talking about" If you asked an ancient Greek they would have said "You cant see it so how can it be a planet" I thought Pluto was Donald Duck's dog. So you don't know about cartoons either. Pluto was Mickey Mouse's dog. I admit to never being in the fan club. Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Galileo affair from a 21st century perspective
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:48:34 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote: On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:41:44 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:27:04 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote: No mess here. Just you being anachronistic. The 'definitional' mess is due to the lack of astronomers insofar as any lover of the celestial arena would never have required a planet to be isolated outside the original context of their 'wandering' motions. How delicate the partitioning between inner and outer planets as they wander against the background stars from two different perspective but these insights are so fragile that they vanish for the crude observers like yourselves who never encountered an astronomical fact that your cult didn't destroy. The planets don't wander around against the background stars. They orbit the Sun. There are no fragile insights. Just predictable motions which are obvious to all those who are capable of appreciating three dimensions - that doesn't include you with your green cats. The line-of-sight observation as the orbital motion of the Earth through space generates a picture where the stars move behind the Sun in sequence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ The planets follow roughly the same route as those stars as they move along their orbital plane but the inner planets wander against the direction of the background stars as they emerge from the Sun and enter back into the Sun having reached their widest point from the Sun as seen from a moving Earth and then move in the direction of the stars for the other half of their orbits as the inner planets move in front of the central Sun - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A You have already disgraced yourself enough by putting the Sun in circumpolar motion when the ancient astronomers up to the time of Copernicus used the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations only as an orbital feature - But they were wrong. It's the Earth which orbits, not the Sun. The working principles of astronomy at the time of Copernicus and Kepler used the apparent motions of the planets and Sun together through the Zodiac to ascertain the time it took the planets and Sun to make a circuit through the background stars hence they switched the position of the Sun with the orbital motion of the Earth and determined the Sun was stationary - " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687 days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth but the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running around the Sun." Kepler What I have done is different to the older astronomers by virtue of adjusting perspectives to suit inner and outer planetary retrogrades and separate resolutions. It is a genuine achievement whether people choose to recognize it or not but then again you poor empiricists never understood your own system let alone the working principles of astronomers. What you have done is different to older astronomers. They were often right, You are rarely right Wish somebody else would begin to use contemporary tools and start to enjoy these things as I have done for so long. No! Your flawed perceptions stopped you perceiving what is obvious to us. when you eventually come across some simple YouTube video you then misunderstand it and think you have discovered something new. Not only have I presented something new and enjoyable, it was done using tools which are also new and available to anyone with an interest in astronomy. The partitioning of retrogrades using separate perspectives of the role of the background stars for gauging motions would be exceptionally difficult with graphics and imaging whereas it is a cinch for observers today as we see the motion of the stars in sequence behind the central Sun due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth which leaves the background canvas for the motion of the inner planets as they swing out and then back in front of the Sun in their orbital trek - http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A Astronomy is always a work in progress and that is why there is such a great affection for the older astronomers as they worked with their systems to the best of their abilities. Any observer today can see Venus and Mercury wander against the background stars which themselves appear to move due to the Earth's annual motion hence the lovely addition to the work of the older astronomers who figured out why the outer planets moved temporarily backwards against the field of stars as the Earth overtakes them. Astronomy was waiting for these visual narratives to show up however they may not appeal to cold scowling hearts who miss the spectacle for what it is.. Yes it is a new discovery and one made possible by 21st century technology but at the core of it is human curiosity and all those traits which are meant to elevate understanding of our surroundings rather than diminish them as your voodoo would have it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Galileo's commentary using 21st century tools | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 28th 13 01:31 AM |
The curse of the 21st century | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 13th 07 06:09 AM |
18TH CENTURY NORMALITY, 21ST CENTURY LUNACY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | September 9th 07 09:53 AM |
21st century astronomy | oriel36 | UK Astronomy | 0 | February 5th 07 04:44 PM |