Theory explained in 3 parts

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:12:29 PM UTC+1, wrote:
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.

This thread is specifically designed for every supporter of Newton and his notion that mutual attraction between objects and predictive astronomy mesh.. I know none of you can describe what he tried to do using his own words and by employing graphics and images to support his contentions. At this stage the different perspectives between the slower moving outer planets and the faster moving inner planets are fixed for a community that now journeys into space regularly.

I know many here lack integrity like zombies who can't be put down however this was a final chance to present what you yourselves believe as astronomy is a visual exercise. You failed to do so like the few others and can be safely discounted but stay away from the descriptions that come later.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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

Don't you love people, Iike 1461, who have loads of
"authority"/expertise - and no accountability/responsibility?

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:46:46 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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

Don't you love people, Iike 1461, who have loads of
"authority"/expertise - and no accountability/responsibility?

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

It is the most inviolate proportion in all astronomy and thousands of years old - the fact that the planet turns 1461 times for 4 circuits of the Sun, formatted as 365 1/4 rotations for 1 circuit naturally or via the calendar framework of 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations. The latter framework came first and comes down to us in written form through the Egyptian's astronomers recognition that the star Sirius skips a first annual appearance by one day after three cycles of 365 days.

All this has been covered before multiple times so now it is up to those who scream in pain that they can't render the mutual attraction theory into astronomical shape for the simple reason that it can't - it is bluffing using common astronomical phrases but no substance within the confines of astronomical methods and insights. It goes for one and all here so scream away to your heart's content, that is all you are allowed.

I have given enough time for contributors to support the 'universal theory of attraction' meshed in with the words of Copernicus/Kepler and the window of opportunity is drawing to close for the coward,the diseased and the stupid alike.

Oops, the star Sirius still skips a first annual appearance by 1 day/rotation after four cycles of 365 days hence the calendar package which uses an external reference and the day/night cycles (daily rotation) to gauge the fractional proportion of rotations for one orbital circuit, in this case 365 1/4 rotations to one circuit or 1461 rotations for 4 circuits. People who contend this fact
or jeer me on account of it are mindless.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10:08:03 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
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...

Well Gerald, you really *must* use the proper terminology, as defined by the Astronomy Professionals. You have surely heard this before, but you continue to deny these terms because *you* don't like them, but tens of thousands of us regular folks understand the reasoning just fine. The (4) rocky planets closest to the Sun are known as the 'inner' planets, and the (4) gas giants are known as the 'outer' planets. Why you are so stubborn about this is beyond me. It has been this way for well over a century and will remain so forever. The terms you really want to use are 'inferior' and 'superior' when it comes to planetary location. Of course, inferior planets are not actually 'inferior' in the usual sense, because in astronomy it just means 'closer to the Sun', and likewise 'superior' only means 'farther from the Sun'. These terms are correct from whatever planet you happen to be talking about at the time.

... There are no apparent/true motions as Newton insisted...

No apparent motions? What are you talking about? Your very own references show how the superior planets 'apparently' move in retrograde motion, even though we know they don't actually move backward... and so did Newton!

... 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

Oh, but you apparently do not understand Newton's use of the word 'direct'. He certainly did NOT mean that the motions of the planets around the sun are not seen directly from Earth! Not even close! Rather then me talking forever, read this...

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re..._direct_motion

.... which will explain very simply and clearly what is meant by 'direct motion'. It is not what you think...

... 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 11:29:35 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10:08:03 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
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...

Well Gerald, you really *must* use the proper terminology, as defined by the Astronomy Professionals. You have surely heard this before, but you continue to deny these terms because *you* don't like them, but tens of thousands of us regular folks understand the reasoning just fine.


This thread allows you to explain in graphical form and imaging how you get from universal mutual attraction of objects to the original astronomical insights proposed by Copernicus and Kepler. If you can't manage to talk in terms of faster/inner and slower/outer orbital motions of the planets seen from Earth then you are not going to appreciate what went wrong and what was deficient in the original proposals of the Sun centered astronomers.

When you talk about 'professionals' you mean theorists or people in charge of really big telescopes but they can be left to their own devices and I have nothing to say to or about them. This is normalizing the language by which observers have a vantage point of the solar system,its structure and how we see the motion of the planets closer to the Sun (inner planets) and those further from our planet from the Sun (outer planets).

"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

Oh, but you apparently do not understand Newton's use of the word 'direct'. He certainly did NOT mean that the motions of the planets around the sun are not seen directly from Earth! Not even close! Rather then me talking forever, read this

I told you and the rest it is impossible to do so talk forever if you wish, the direct/retrogrades of the planets are separated by perspective depending on whether they are moving faster or slower than the Earth. There is no true/apparent motions, there is just normal judgments people use everyday when they get into their car and judge motions of other cars. Everyone is good at this which is why the partitioning of direct/retrograde motions should be celebrated in schools and elsewhere -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/011...2000_tezel.gif

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Fair dues for trying to present a graphic but perhaps find something more suitable. This is not a thread for cutting people to pieces or insults, it is designed to demonstrate that what you believe via a late 17th century ideology is really obstructive for 21st century people.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 7:16:45 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Oops, the star Sirius still skips a first annual appearance by 1 day/rotation after four cycles of 365 days

This year it was after the midsummer solstice, and in ancient Egypt is was before the summer solstice. People who understand astronomy explain this as a consequence of the precession of the equinox.

But you don't believe in precession so you can't explain it, yet you keep bringing up the heliacal rising of Sirius as if it helps you instead of proving you utterly wrong.

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:40:27 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 7:16:45 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Oops, the star Sirius still skips a first annual appearance by 1 day/rotation after four cycles of 365 days

This year it was after the midsummer solstice, and in ancient Egypt is was before the summer solstice. People who understand astronomy explain this as a consequence of the precession of the equinox.


The people who watched the solar eclipse were looking at the totality of the inner solar system as they were doing so and this includes the observation that the star Regulus was to the left of the Sun -

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...vN5RpbMRw.jpeg

It is now to the right of the Sun due to the fact that the Earth's forward orbital motion has caused the star to appear as a pre-dawn appearance -

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2017/09/2...rs-mercury.jpg


The Egyptians used an observation that certain stars disappear from view and have a seasonal first appearance and that it presented an annual marker whereby they could begin their year. More importantly they realized that Sirius skips a first annual appearance after the fourth cycle of 365 days and this is the founding jewel of timekeeping -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

This too has been covered multiple times yet it is also included in the disaster that is celestial sphere reckoning which was used inappropriately by Newton in attempting to connect mutual attractions of objects to astronomy.

Now you have had enough of my time and unless your sole purpose is to have an unhealthy interest in my threads, I suggest you go off and do your own research otherwise it is slinging wrong astronomical terms like the rest like many have done over the years. I feel your time is done and that is as much as I can say but unless you lack total integrity do not interfere further.

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:11:48 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I feel your time is done and that is as much as I can say but unless you lack total integrity do not interfere further.

Lunatic demands to be put in charge of his private asylum?
Surely not? Who will feed you, hand out your medication and do your laundry?
You already enjoy the [ab]use of far more therapists and tutors than the rest of humanity.
If we give you a token white coat and a name badge, will you be quiet then?

Right, all the noiseboxes, apart from Paul, have had their chance to promote what it is exactly they believe rather than the usual noise directed towards me.