To derive Keplerian orbital motion/geometry

Axial orientation is constant and the orbital orientation (due to
orbital motion) changes

Err, that doesn't match what we observe though does it ? If the Earth's
orbital plane is tilted in relation to the Sun's equatorial plane we should
see the Sun's north and south poles alternately, each once a year. We do
not. Or is the Sun's axis is also tilted (coincidentally ) to same value as
the Earth's supposed orbital inclination? If so why the Earth's tilt and not
for instance Jupiter's or Uranus's ? or even, (think of this) Venus's ? If
the planets do not orbit in what I would call the ecliptic plane then after
a few revolutions they would be all over the sky, probes would not reach
their destinations and yet they do. When probes look back toward Earth from
the outer solar system they see it where the planetary disc model predicts.
jc

John Savard wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 08:34:23 -0700, "oriel36"
wrote, in part:

I enjoy Newton because he sent you all on a wild goosechase and down so
many blind alleys that when you reach the inevitable limitations you
imagine some profound new direction is required.

You are claiming then that Kepler was right about something that Newton
was wrong about?


No claims are made among astronomers,at least not in the empirical
sense it is made today.The original heliocentric justification does not
reduce to a simplistic level of the 'Earth going around the Sun',for
that is a fact in itself but that the backward arcs of the planets are
best explained by the orbital motion of the Earth thus inferring a
heliocentric axis common to all the planets.

Whereas the plotting of the planets against the background
stars,including apparent retrogrades , is the geocentric side,the
translation to their actual orbital motions made from the center of
the Earth's orbital motion is what makes a person a heliocentrist.No
uneccessary and inappropriate framehopping to the Sun to account for
retrogrades and this is the wrecked Newtonian maneuver.

Only with the barest courtesy could I find the actual Keplerian
representation (Page 86) which straddles both the geocentric plotting
of the motion of Mars and the intermediary heliocentric translation.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

The retrograde loops will each be different for each time the Earth's
approaches the orbital path of Mars at its closest where apparent
retrogrades occur but this translates into variations in where along
the annual orbit this occurs. The signature will be a different period
for a backward arc depending on where the Earth in its annual orbital
cycle.

Retaining the background stars using the unethical maneuver of
transfering the already erroneous Flamsteed's sidereal format to a
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency wrecks any appreciation of
the intricate procedures of Kepler.

Today I treat elliptical motion of the Earth by using the Equation of
Time reflecting a constant rotating Earth and the changing nature of
orbital orbital orientation (due to orbital motion) to account for
Keplerian orbital motion and its geometry.



At least this is a statement that I can understand; it seems to say
something. But what was Newton wrong about?


Here is the explanation for retrogrades made by Galileo who was closer
to empirical science than Copernicus followed by the Newtonian mangled
mess.It is impossible to present how the insights differ to those who
out of inacaoacity or incompetence cannot see it for themselves only
that the background stars are dropped by focusing attension on the
annual orbital motion of the Earth.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

"Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]


Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars

also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in

Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth

overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion
being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time
in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles
are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions

appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them,
but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by
Copernicus . . .


You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue

Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

Newton just jumped to the Sun as a mean to get rid of retrogrades and
more awfully,to depart from pure heliocentricity to a
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

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

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

The actual reasoning of the heliocentrists is that the motion of the
planets are seen direct when the orbital motion of the Earth is taken
into account,retrogrades disaapear and a faster Earth taking an inner
orbital circuit provides the resolution for retrogrades.

Now do you see Newton's awful maneuver and why it is so destructive.





Why are we wrong, today, to look at things primarily from the simplest
viewpoint for a system which you admit is, in fact, heliocentric, simply
because Kepler, for an audience used to the geocentric point of view,
carefully explained the geocentric consequences of a heliocentric Solar
System without leaving the geocentric *perspective* - so as to be
acceptable to people who had not already been prepared in advance to
take the heliocentric nature of the Solar System for granted?


The Newtonian scheme is neither geocentric nor heliocentric.The
representation by Kepler of the plotting of the motion of Mars against
the background stars would represent the necessary geocentric side of
astronomy,the translation of those motions to the Earth annual orbital
motion (simultaneously recognising a common heliocentric axis)
represents the heliocentric side.In accounting for retrogrades , the
Copernican switch from epicycles to the annual orbital motion of the
Earth relies on dropping the reference to the backgrounds stars thereby
his contemporaries could rightly say like Johannes Praetorius-



"Now . . . everyone approves the calculations of Copernicus . . . .
[and] this symmetry of all the orbs appears to fit together with the
greatest of consonance . . . . [so] we follow Ptolemy, in part, and
Copernicus, in part." 1592

Rather than fight the Newtonian corner,review that representation of
Kepler on page 86 of the document and determine that as an intermediary
representation between the plotting of the motion of Mars against the
stellar background and its provisional heliocentric status as the
motion of Mars as it occurs against the orbital motion of the Earth,you
make the judgement on whether retaining the background stars is a good
idea in a heliocentric framework,be it the Copernican insight or the
Keplerian refinement.

BTW,I appreciate the civility,







John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

To Charles

The astronomical mechanism for cyclical seasonal changes is far more
delicate than the limited view presented in terms of hemispherical
axial tilt to the orbital plane or Sun.

Considering the importance of getting what causes those cyclical
changes using the entire planet and its indepedent axial motion and
orientation along with its orbital motion and orientation,I refuse to
be drawn into precessional avenues which are not required for the
purposes of cyclical annual changes or indeed reference to the
geocentric celestial sphere on which constellations are based

I have already outlined that Flamsteed homogenised axial and orbital
motion into a sidereal format which is why cyclical seasonal variations
are erroneously expressed in variations in the Sun's position to the
Equator notwithstanding that it splits the planet into hemispheres.

Perhaps many climatologists would like to approach cyclical climate
changes and imbalances from the recorded cycles (global warming for
instance) by using a global rather than a hemispherical view.Now,it is
an exciting and relevent avenue for any who will pursue a more accurate
mechanism based on the change of orbital orientation passing through
fixed axial orientation but that is a matter which I have no control
over,presently,I can only make availible that the shortcuts and fudges
taken to secure terrestial longitudes to a celestial sphere are coming
back to haunt investigators in many disciplines where an accurate
astronomical/terrestial relationship between axial and orbital motions
and orientations are required.

To John

One of the most difficult part of this astronomical forensics was
spotting the transfer of Flamsteed's axial rotational/stellar
circumpolar equivalency to a Newtonian geocentric/heliocentric orbital
equivalency.

The guys who make a fuss about the Earth's rotation to inertial
space,absolute space,etc ,with or without a medium,are just recycling
the erroneous reasoning of Flamsteed.After all,the man was occupied
with tying terrestial axial longitudes to the celestial sphere for
navigational purposes and not engaged in heliocentric modelling.

I already outlined that Flamsteed homogenised axial and orbital motion
off a common axis (i.e. Earth's axis) and using a calendrical
average,it is not justified that a location on Earth rotates to face
the Sun every 24 hours and a background star 3 min 56 sec earlier.

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

The constant .986 degree orbital displacement is derived like such

24 hours = 360 degrees

4 min = 1 deg

3 min 56 sec = .986 deg

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

Basically,Flamsteed calculated the return of a star in 23 hours 56 min
of a 24 hour day by shoving the difference in orbital motion and
allowing the observer to designate TWO events for axial rotation
through 360 degrees ,one to the Sun and one to the distant stars. This
is basically proto - framhopping that Newton used as a point of
departure for his choice of geocentric or heliocentric frames.

Now,assuming that you are not hostile and do not mind that these things
come under an astronomical audit, for your own specific purposes as I
have mine,it takes courage to stand and discuss the material .

Here is the explanation for retrogrades made by Galileo who was closer
to empirical science than Copernicus followed by the Newtonian mangled
mess.It is impossible to present how the insights differ to those who
out of inacaoacity or incompetence cannot see it for themselves only
that the background stars are dropped by focusing attension on the
annual orbital motion of the Earth.

I'm sorry but I still feel that if the worthy giants you quote so freely
(and frequently) had access to the wealth of data and observations we enjoy
today then, being above all reasonable men, they would have been among the
first to alter their cosmologies to accommodate the observed phenomena.
Why can't you ?
jc

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:46:31 +0100, "john carruthers"
wrote, in part:

I'm sorry but I still feel that if the worthy giants you quote so freely
(and frequently) had access to the wealth of data and observations we enjoy
today then, being above all reasonable men, they would have been among the
first to alter their cosmologies to accommodate the observed phenomena.
Why can't you ?

I'm puzzled by this question. I believe he is mistaken, but I didn't
think this was what he was mistaken about. Nothing in Newtonian
mechanics contradicted Kepler's laws *in the slightest* - Kepler's laws
can be derived from Newton's laws.

Although some of his posts do seem to allude to the Principle of
Equivalence, it does not *seem* to be General Relativity - which does
differ from classical physics, and is shown to be correct in those
differences by observation - that he is opposing.

Although the idea that we should never consider motion from the
viewpoint of more than one reference frame, which he seems to be
advocating, is a threat even to Special Relativity.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article .com,
Erik wrote:
see, the reason no one wanted to support Columbus was that he believed
that the distance to sail west from the Canary Islands to China would
be about 1500 miles. Everyone knew this was bologna, and he was
rejected. Isabella and Ferdinand only supported him because some felt
there might be land on the other side of the world.

I've heard it suggested that it was the other way round - Columbus
was sure there would be some land out there, but the only way to get
funding was to claim that he would get to China.

-- Richard

Well, I have not heard it posed quite that way, but some have argued
that he recieved a charter to sail to China, and all of his goodies and
rewards (including the title Admiral) were his if he fulfilled his
commission. Some have argued that after spending time in the Americas,
he knew he had not reached China (especially since his requests for an
audience with the Chinese emperor were met with confusion by the
Arawak). However, if he admitted that, new world or not, Isabella and
Ferdinand could technically avoid fulfilling their end of the bargain.
They chose to anyway, as there was a lot of gold, and as Columbus wrote
to the king in the very next sentence (They are naked, and without
arms). The rest of his life, however, we have abundant evidence that,
even in confidence, Columbus insisted he landed in islands off of the
coast of Japan. I guess in his mind, that would explain the confusion
arising from his request for an audience with the CHINESE emperor. ;-)

Erik
socalsw

To John

I have played down the scale of the destruction to heliocentric
astronomy in how I present these things,prefering to believe that men
who have seen the original reasoning,explanations and the footage of
the apparent backwards arcs in the motions of the planets,would choose
to rectify matters rather than continue with a botched Newtonian
perspective.

That Keplerian representation ,the Panus Quadragesimalis, is the
astronomical equivalent of the Mona Lisa and Kepler knew it.The
subtleties of the geocentric plotting of the motion of Mars against the
stellar background to the partially heliocentric motion of Mars against
the Earth's orbital motion by making exquisite use of retrograde loops
is just a joy to behod.

It is also the worst nightmare if a stationary Earth is assumed when
the representation has roots in both a geocentric and heliocentric
perspective,this is exactly what happened as the translations from
geocentric to heliocentric were done with almost a brute forcing -

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

It is the loss of astronomical nobility and the wonderful dawning
realisation that a faster Earth moving in an inner orbital circuit
generates the insight of a heliocentric axis,the arrangement of
planets,the dual axial and orbital motions of the Earth and their
relationship to each other.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

More importantly,a dilution of the great Copernican insight to
speculative framehopping to the Sun in accounting for retrogrades
diminishes the entire body of what human achievement is,contemporaries
suffer from the loss and especially men.Now only physical ability is
sport generates heroes whereas that great endeavors in investigating
natural phenomena,terrestial and celestial,languish is a method that is
ill suited to deal with data and observations.

It is most important to intepret the motions above accurately by
dropping the stellar background and focusing on the motion of the Earth
in accounting for the foraward,then backward and then forward motions
of the planets thus by direct perception can heliocentricity be
resolved.Without it,heliocentric astronomy is finished.