Celestial dynamics

Right up to the late 17th century,the most preferred explanation for celestial motions on a solar system scale was that larger rotating objects imparted motion on smaller objects on an ascending or descending scale -

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

In the 1666 this idea is still in circulation even though terms such as 'laws' are being applied to the conjecture ,on page 9 Wallis discusses the acceleration and retardation of the tides in response to the annual motion of the Earth based on the assumption that the rotation of the Sun supplies the impetus for our planetary dynamics -

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html

The next approach is a total and utter mess as Newton loosely looks at motions on a human scale and then applies it to celestial dynamics with no substantial binding element and a complete and utter disregard for astronomical principles which do not allow the predictive side of astronomy to act as a conduit for discerning planetary dynamics. The next mutation of this conceptional indulgence based on 'warped space' is best left for the hopeless who know no better.

When the solar system's galactic orbital motion was discovered it should have caused researchers to revisit planetary dynamics insofar as the Sun actually does move through space as a function of galactic orbital motion hence the planets move with the Sun as part of their orbits and at other times in the opposite direction -

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/.../fomalhaut.jpg


The opportunities that contemporary imaging provides are spectacular but with exceptionally lazy and indoctrinated researchers living off rubbish inherited from other eras these opportunities are not being taken.

Not too long ago Gerald wrote - "Were you to stand on the Greenwich meridian and count the number of times a circumpolar star crosses it, you would discover 1461 times in 1461 days or the 4 times it take the Earth to complete a circuit of the central Sun."

Finally Gerald comes clean!

For ages I haven't been clear if Gerald accepts the concept of the sidereal day but disputes its significance in everyday life or if he disputes the concept in its entirety. Clearly it is the latter.

Readers here know full well that if you look due north at midnight on Dec 31st the sky doesn't look exactly the same at it does on June 30th. It only requires the most simple of experiments to prove this. Gerald would have readers believe that he hasn't made this observation himself, sorry Gerald but I don't buy this, not for a minute.

So I suggest that he either cannot accept the evidence of his own eyes in which case he needs immediate and significant help or he is, as many have suggested, some combination of a troll and a sufferer from autism. Either way we cannot help him

If you look through the archives of this and other groups you will see that Gerald has been campaigning for years to get his ideas accepted. I don't know what he **actually believes** as opposed to what he **claims to believe** but I do know that from time to time he lets his guard down and posts his version of "facts" rather than the usual convoluted garbage. Each time he does this the idiocy of communicating with him become clearer.


As Bill so correctly puts it - If I was fighting for my convictions. I would be out in the real world putting shoe leather to pavement. I'd would lobby my officials in government, education, and any other groups that would give me a minute of their time. So forth and so on... Conversely, if all I seemed to be doing was to seek to keep a static, running, conflict going between myself and people who were easily accessible to me, as in this tiny group... I would not be surprised if people questioned my motives/intentions; and drew their own conclusions about me; and you'd be correct to do so.

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 7:27:33 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
and a complete and utter disregard for astronomical principles which do not
allow the predictive side of astronomy to act as a conduit for discerning
planetary dynamics.

Well, here we are. This may be the critical point, the reason why we differ.

*What* astronomical principles are there which prevent the predictive side of astronomy to be used to discern planetary dynamics?

These principles are being disregarded basically because we have no conception that any such principles do, or even could, exist. So what are they?

John Savard