Anatomy of a conceptual disaster

The original geocentric astronomers assumed the Earth was stationary and invested the other planets with a looping motion -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap141028.html

In this scheme the Sun orbited between the 687 day period of Mars and the 225 day period of Venus. In a way those images don't tell the observer much about the motion of Mars and less about the motion of the Earth, this requires another image where the faster Earth overtakes the slower moving outer planets as they fall behind in view -

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

The trouble was that this type of imaging was unavailable to the original Sun centered astronomers so they plotted the motion of Mars and the other outer planets in the familiar looping motions each time the faster Earth overtook them -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann...retrograde.jpg


"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits ,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars
traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you
see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while
at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

Even to this days the empiricists think that Kepler's diagram is geocentric and therein lies a grave error and the cause of so much trouble. Newton created the false notion of true/apparent motions describing geocentric motions as relative space and motion while absolute space and motion represented a Sun centered perspective which was beyond the limitations of human observation hence his false comments on retrogrades and indeed how the motions of the Earth are discerned -

"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

There can be no defence, retrogrades now are divided between inner and outer planetary perspectives so that even the original Sun centered astronomers did not make it this far. The problem now is human stature, as the drones still hankering back to the late 17th century ideologies have no interpretative capital and no interest in astronomy while the magnification guys are best left to their own devices, literally.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The original geocentric astronomers assumed the Earth was stationary and
invested the other planets with a looping motion -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap141028.html

In this scheme the Sun orbited between the 687 day period of Mars and the
225 day period of Venus. In a way those images don't tell the observer
much about the motion of Mars and less about the motion of the Earth,
this requires another image where the faster Earth overtakes the slower
moving outer planets as they fall behind in view -

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

The trouble was that this type of imaging was unavailable to the original
Sun centered astronomers so they plotted the motion of Mars and the other
outer planets in the familiar looping motions each time the faster Earth overtook them -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann...retrograde.jpg


"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits ,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars
traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you
see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while
at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

Even to this days the empiricists think that Kepler's diagram is
geocentric and therein lies a grave error and the cause of so much
trouble. Newton created the false notion of true/apparent motions
describing geocentric motions as relative space and motion while absolute
space and motion represented a Sun centered perspective which was beyond
the limitations of human observation hence his false comments on
retrogrades and indeed how the motions of the Earth are discerned -

"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

There can be no defence, retrogrades now are divided between inner and
outer planetary perspectives so that even the original Sun centered
astronomers did not make it this far. The problem now is human stature,
as the drones still hankering back to the late 17th century ideologies
have no interpretative capital and no interest in astronomy while the
magnification guys are best left to their own devices, literally.











All your ridiculously childish ideas are a conceptual disaster.

Why do you keep reminding us how right Newton was and how wrong you are.
Keep it up.

This isn't about Newton being wrong but rather all that is good about astronomy exists like scattered leaves throughout the internet so that a narrative has emerged where the external illusionary loops of the outer planets differ from the actual loops of the inner planets as they run their annual circuits around the Sun.

Kepler's rendition of Mars as seen against the background stars doesn't work for inner planets and therein lies a flaw that I have addressed since the inception of Sun centered reasoning -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann...retrograde.jpg

The hapless empiricist who follows Newton's absolute/relative space and motion (and still do as seen from a nuisance poster) can't spot the attempt to double model the same observation based on an idea that retrogrades are seen from Earth (relative space and motion) disappear with a Sun centered view (absolute space and motion). Of course this generated the silly attempt to equate Earth based observations with Sun based observations -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

People who can't work it out and who are paid to call themselves astronomers have no qualifications much less all the linguistic rubbish of relativity built on exploiting Newton's absolute/relative jargon .

Continuing with the theme of irregular geocentric/heliocentric equivalencies on which Newton built his absolute/relative space and motion signifying Earth and Sun based perspectives is the flaw in Huygen's reasoning based on the Equation of Time which Newton called absolute/relative time.

To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation" Huygens

Huygen's too creates an equivalency in the first sentence with the annual motion of the Sun equating with the annual motion of the Earth through the Zodiac however the Equation of Time cannot operate outside the calendar framework so when Huygens tries to squeeze the Equation of Time into 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes he fails to account for February 29th which also requires the timekeeping correction to reduce the variations in that day to a 24 hour average.

There is much to add but at least the nuts and bolts of Newton's agenda are out in the open for the first time since he conjured up his contrived agenda based on perspective equivalencies, perspectives that do not work and never had.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:02:18 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.

....and, of course, today, the Equation of Time has absolutely nothing to do with
how much a watch might go too fast or too slow. Only the condition of the watch
controls that.

The Equation of Time instead shows by how much a *sundial* goes too fast or too
slow.

I suspect, with the way you speak of the calendar, you think it should be, as in
this quote, the other way around.

John Savard

The predicament of the people in the late 19th century was that while they found the empirical agenda initiated by Newton convenient where experimental science could be morphed to a celestial scale, they had no understanding of the components which went into that agenda and particularly the 'definitions' which amount to false or flawed perspectives.

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

Although absolute time within the umbrella of the Equation of Time is actually a timekeeping term but has no intrinsic value no more than relative time has nor can these terms can be matched with the natural noon cycle and the 24 hour cycle which the Equation of Time bridges, Mach gets at least one thing right.

There is no external reference for rotation as an isolated motion at a rate of 15° per hour and consequently a full 360° rotation in 24 hours. An experiment would be to measure the length of time it took the Sun to cross the observer's meridian each day using a sand clock, each cycle would generate a different volume of sand corresponding to the individual variations in the daily cycle. By combining all the sand together and dividing them into equal amounts, the corresponding value would be 24 hours, the more days measured and divided equally the closer to a volume consistent with 24 hours. This is what the Equation of Time does and why there is no external reference for rotation at a rate of 4 minutes for each 1° of rotation.

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:29:28 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

There is no external reference for rotation as an isolated motion at a rate of 15° per hour and consequently a full 360° rotation in 24 hours.

Correct, but there are thousands of external references called "stars" which all show that the Earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds.

On Wed, 17 May 2017 05:57:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:29:28 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

There is no external reference for rotation as an isolated motion at a rate of 15° per hour and consequently a full 360° rotation in 24 hours.

Correct, but there are thousands of external references called "stars" which all show that the Earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds.

The structure of the Universe itself provides a reference for
rotation, which is observed in centrifugal force, oblate rotating
spheres, Focault pendulums, and numerous other examples. We need no
visible external reference at all to measure how fast something is
rotating. Certainly we have instruments which measure the rotation of
the Earth via inertial properties to very high precision... and
clearly demonstrate that its rotation rate is less than one rotation
every 24 hours.

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:03:19 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

.. Certainly we have instruments which measure the rotation of
the Earth via inertial properties to very high precision... and
clearly demonstrate that its rotation rate is less than one rotation
every 24 hours.

Such a strange illness you have insofar as it is the easiest thing imaginable to ask what you think the Equatorial speed of the Earth is for a 24901 mile circumference. The 24 hour system and Lat/Long system determine a rotational rate of 15 degrees per hour or a speed of 1037.5 miles per hour at the Equator and diminishing towards either poles yet you unfortunates can force yourselves to ignore not only the answer but the question.

The Equation of Time creates the average 24 hour day out of the variations in the natural noon cycle, this average is quite similar in nature to the word constant hence the conversion of an average rate of rotation at 15 degrees per hour to a constant rate of rotation at 15 degrees per hour. There is no external reference for this wonderful feature yet what keeps it all together is the day/night cycle correlating cause and effect.

Unlike the elaborate but contrived scheme of Newton, the early 20th century theorist looks crude -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

There is little or nothing to say about the relativity nonsense built out of Newton's absolute/relative 'definitions' as the damage has already been done centuries before .

It is unfair to say that it comes down to an attempt to use RA/Dec to obliterate the Lat/Long system or rather try to bypass the central Sun and appeal to a rotating celestial sphere however it is a major issue which the empirical drones here wish to maintain.

The Lat/Long system is built into the facts of a round and rotating Earth -

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...mericas250.jpg

Over the course of an orbit the surface point where longitude meridians converge will be seen to turn parallel to the orbital plane unlike diurnal rotation which does not. It is the forward motion of the Earth through space which causes the single surface rotation to the Sun and because the Earth's varies in speed this orbital surface rotation responds in terms of the natural noon inequality when combined with diurnal rotation.

The disaster of RA/Dec reasoning, if it can be dignified as reasoning, is the willingness to impose rotation directly into the celestial framework even though the Lat/Long system would prohibit such a drastic action.