To derive Keplerian orbital motion/geometry

"john carruthers" wrote in message
...
Geocentric,heliocentric, with reference to the galactic plane or the sun's
equator, celestial longitude,
planetographic, local alt/az etc etc. There are many frames of reference,
use whichever best suits your needs, but don't base your life around it.
jc

Personally, I believe in meocentricity.

To John

If you imagine that you can chose as you please then good for you but
you lot managed to pervert the insight of Copernicus to go along with
your subhuman relativistic homocentricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

That Copernicus inferred an rotational axis for the Earth and a common
heliocentric axis for the Earth and the other planets relies on the
wonderful recognition that the Earth is moving in a circular orbit and
men are moving with it.

It was Newton who began that framehopping nonsense which destroyed the
original reasoning through retrogrades behind heliocentricity -

"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."

You can give yourselves all the choices you want but one opinion will
be no better or worse than the next.You base you life around putting
mathematicians and their theories as the center of things which is why
nobody listens to the exotic nonsense anymore.

I am actually promoting the appreciation of astronomy through
judgements of scale,distance and motions that are common to all people
and it is that loss of the sense of scale of our parent star and
orbital geometry which has suffered most from equational intrusion into
the discipline.Anyone can appreciate how Copernicus come up with
heliocentricity and the arrangement of planets with only a small effort
and no special attribute but this is what has been temporarily lost.

There is plenty of work for theorists regardless but why adhere to a
Newtonian concept that never worked.

That Copernicus inferred an rotational axis for the Earth and a common
heliocentric axis for the Earth and the other planets relies on the
wonderful recognition that the Earth is moving in a circular orbit and
men are moving with it.

I see we're here for the long job.
If as you and your illustrious source say, the Earth's orbit is circular,
why does the Sun's apparent angular diameter vary throughout the year ?.
It's almost as if (heresy) the Earth is in an elliptical orbit isn't it ?
jc

oriel36 wrote:
The relationship between axial and orbital motion using the Sun's light
as a reference has been known for centuries as especially the asymmetry
between one noon to the next as a location rotates to face the Sun
directly.

If divided into equal periods,from one natural noon to the next,would
[snip]

Ah, I see the crackpot is still babbling and whigning. Mini-min, for
someone who has nothing to say, you take up and enormous amount of
bandwith. Now what was that famous rant about stupid (black hole of
stupidity in a void of ignorance or some such thing...)

Erik
socalsw

oriel36 wrote:
The relationship between axial and orbital motion using the Sun's light
as a reference has been known for centuries as especially the asymmetry
between one noon to the next as a location rotates to face the Sun
directly.

If divided into equal periods,from one natural noon to the next,would
[snip]

Ah, I see the crackpot is still babbling and whigning. Mini-min, for
someone who has nothing to say, you take up and enormous amount of
bandwith. Now what was that famous rant about stupid (black hole of
stupidity in a void of ignorance or some such thing...)

Erik
socalsw

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...
To John

If you imagine that you can chose as you please then good for you but
you lot managed to pervert the insight of Copernicus to go along with
your subhuman relativistic homocentricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

That Copernicus inferred an rotational axis for the Earth and a common
heliocentric axis for the Earth and the other planets relies on the
wonderful recognition that the Earth is moving in a circular orbit and
men are moving with it.

It was Newton who began that framehopping nonsense which destroyed the
original reasoning through retrogrades behind heliocentricity -

"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."

You can give yourselves all the choices you want but one opinion will
be no better or worse than the next.You base you life around putting
mathematicians and their theories as the center of things which is why
nobody listens to the exotic nonsense anymore.

I am actually promoting the appreciation of astronomy through
judgements of scale,distance and motions that are common to all people
and it is that loss of the sense of scale of our parent star and
orbital geometry which has suffered most from equational intrusion into
the discipline.Anyone can appreciate how Copernicus come up with
heliocentricity and the arrangement of planets with only a small effort
and no special attribute but this is what has been temporarily lost.

There is plenty of work for theorists regardless but why adhere to a
Newtonian concept that never worked.


So is the earth not flat then?

To Erik

You belong to a group of people who imagine that the Earth tilts
towards and away from the Sun among other things -

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

Axial orientation is constant and the orbital orientation (due to
orbital motion) changes but as Flamsteed introduced an analemma or a
fudge which infused a relationship between the Sun and Equator,you lot
are forced into believing a variation in the axial tilt to the Sun or
orbital plane.

No offense but your hemispherical Earth outlook using astronomy is far
worse than even the flat-Earthers.

For the homocentric relativist,or 'every point is the valid center of
the universe' crowd it would not matter as long as he had his
equations.

That is about as far away from astronomy and human reasoning as it is
possible to get and it appears you all have managed it.

For heliocentrists there is always the words of Copernicus in passing
judgement on variations of geocentricityquasi-geocentricity and
homocentricity -

Copernicus



". . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions,
with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like
someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would
be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their
demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to
have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something
inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to
them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses
which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows
from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

You have disgraced yourselves before real human achievement.

between one noon to the next as a location rotates to face the Sun
directly.

If divided into equal periods,from one natural noon to the next,would
[snip]

==Ah, I see the crackpot is still babbling and whigning. Mini-min, for
someone who has nothing to say, you take up and enormous amount of
bandwith. Now what was that famous rant about stupid (black hole of
stupidity in a void of ignorance or some such thing...)

Erik==

I pass the baton to you Erik, my Mum says I must log off and have my dinner
now. She says I can come back tomorrow so long as Gerry isn't one of those
'funny men'.
Bye for now.
jc

oriel36 wrote:
To Erik

[snip]
No offense but your hemispherical Earth outlook using astronomy is far
worse than even the flat-Earthers.

None taken, especially since you have compared me to a group that never
existed. Or did your teacher teach you that tired old myth that
Columbus thought the world was round and everybody thought the earth
was flat.

Come to think of it, you share a lot with Columbus. You think that you
yourself are right, and everyone recognizes that you are wrong. You
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.

You see, Columbus was willfully ignorant in the same manner as you.
Not just ignorant; a navel-gazing, self-delusional, half-witted,
thought-impeded, buffalo-slow-witted, hamster-brained, half-blind,
drunken-stupid moron. He made up his own evidence to suit his argument
(like you). He had no concept of how his concepts fit within the wider
world (like you). And he insisted until the day he died that he had
been right all along and had indeed sailed to islands off of the coast
of China, despite all evidence to the contrary. Dead-on like you,
Mini-min. Only the difference was that he stumbled onto America (well,
the caribbean at least) and committed genocide against its inhabitants.
You have merely stumbled upon this newsgroup, discovered new and
unintentionally humerous ways in which to embarass yourself, and have
only declared war on reason, intellect, and the English language. I
fart in your general direction, you creatonous toad.

But really, no offense. Keep off of the grass and have a nice day. :-]

Erik
socalsw