Theory explained in 3 parts

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:51:45 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:42:21 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Btw, the direct/retrograde motions of the inner planets are spectacular and altogether different that the perspective which governs the outer planets -

Mars is an inner planet and you are ridiculous.

Mars is a slower moving outer planet, Venus is a faster moving inner planet - this is how we see the solar system from our vantage point within the system.

Your sole purpose in this newsgroup is to attach yourself to my threads and that is seriously unhealthy for all concerned.

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 08:27:16 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Your sole purpose in this newsgroup is to attach yourself to my threads and that is seriously unhealthy for all concerned.

We already know you are a sociopath [psychopath] from oft-repeated behaviours.

Do you also have a history of schizophrenia?

That might explain a great deal.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10:06:37 AM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 08:27:16 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Your sole purpose in this newsgroup is to attach yourself to my threads and that is seriously unhealthy for all concerned.

We already know you are a sociopath [psychopath] from oft-repeated behaviours.

Do you also have a history of schizophrenia?

That might explain a great deal.

When you post about '1461' again make sure you get it right as it is a proportion of rotations to orbital circuits , in this case 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits which cover the calendar system and the way of formatting observations. Predictive astronomy is based on the calendar framework and this is where RA/Dec comes in and ultimately the scheme of Newton which tries to connect the opinion of mutual attractions to astronomy fails in a timekeeping sense.

When you stop being the barking dog of the newsgroup you get a chance to recover some human dignity but it seems you are happy in your intellectual squalor.

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 11:54:14 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

When you stop being the barking dog of the newsgroup you get a chance to recover some human dignity but it seems you are happy in your intellectual squalor.

Pot, kettle, black.

Do you have a history of schizophrenia?

Does this explain your many delusions and your aggression towards far better educated critics of those same delusions?

Do you have any grasp upon everyday reality, at all?

Your online behaviour would suggest you abandoned reality many years ago.

Do you have any ability, at all, to recognise when you [alone] are completely wrong?

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 7:27:16 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Mars is a slower moving outer planet, Venus is a faster moving inner planet - this is how we see the solar system from our vantage point within the system.

Inner and outer planets are astronomical terms with actual meanings of which you are ignorant:

https://www.universetoday.com/34577/...outer-planets/

The inner planets (in order of distance from the sun, closest to furthest) are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. After an asteroid belt comes the outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

What you mean to talk about are the inferior and superior planets. But carry on, it makes your posts more obvious nonsensical to casual readers when you get your astronomical terms wrong.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:35:27 PM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:

Unlike other threads,this is not a platform for the usual histrionics, as far as I concerned what remains of contributors to the newsgroup is no better or worse than the next ,that being said, you all have a chance to present how an opinion on mutual attraction between objects intersects with astronomical principles and insights.

You all have a job to do that I know is not possible using graphics and images so I will eventually demonstrate what was attempted, why it dopesn't work and more importantly, what it is blocking.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:57:30 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 7:27:16 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Mars is a slower moving outer planet, Venus is a faster moving inner planet - this is how we see the solar system from our vantage point within the system.

Inner and outer planets are astronomical terms with actual meanings of which you are ignorant:

https://www.universetoday.com/34577/...outer-planets/


Inner and outer planets are relative perspectives seen from whatever planet the others are viewed from. The Earth becomes an inner planet seen from Mars as it will show phases and behave much as Venus does from our vantage point while Jupiter and Saturn seen from Mars will show no phases and will temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Mars overtakes them.

People of common sense merely take it up as faster/inner and slower/outer and move on as a society who has already taken the first journeys into space as confident people. Say good bye to superior/inferior unless you are talking about intellects.

Rotations with respect to what?

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:21:19 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
Rotations with respect to what?

This is a different type of thread Paul and to be fair to you, despite your mild insults and stock phrases, you are able to actually dwell on technical detail and have an interest in astronomy.

This is fundamentally a thread based on orbital motions and how we see the faster moving inner planets from the slower moving outer planets in a stationary Sun centered system. There are no apparent/true motions as Newton insisted, there are only the actual motions of the planets around the Sun seen from a moving Earth with the motion of the outer planets best appreciated using time lapse footage and the faster moving inner planets using sequential imaging . They now phrase the changes as size and illumination increases and that is progress that was discussed at length in this forum -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/170...h2017small.jpg

If you insist in following Newton in the belief that the motions of the planets around the Sun are not seen directly from Earth then I insist you must counter the imaging with alternative imaging or graphics -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

If you find it too painful then withdraw but don't descend to the racket of others who can't supply the arguments where an opinion of mutual attraction was applied to the observed motions of the planets.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:15:24 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Say good bye to superior/inferior unless you are talking about intellects.

Or astronomy, but you know less about that than my dog, so carry on.