Structural reforms to astronomy

The most accurate summation of a dismal situation was not written in
the last century but in the 19th century by a writer honest and
intelligent enough to call it as it is.

"To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us
to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an
hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an
hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason
could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
— would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what
rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were
to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so,
simply for the sake of consistency in words?" Edgar Allan Poe

I have previously noted that very few men over the centuries have
dared question the empirical approach to astronomy and terrestrial
sciences even though the empiricists themselves are unfamiliar with
Newton's attempt to mesh the behavior of objects at a human level with
motions of the moon and planets.The problem is that the original
approach never worked yet it is possible to analyse the ingredients
which Newton put together in talking up modeling as opposed to the
translation of observations into interpretative insights such as why
the planets appear to stop and then move temporarily backwards -the
answer being ,of course,that the moving Earth supplies to resolution
and particularly the outer planets .

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The whole foundation of Newton's absolute/relative space and motion
ideology is contrary to the core insight of Copernicus as it purports
a technical non sequitur in that apparent retrogrades are an artifact
of a moving Earth and resolved only by a moving Earth hence the grave
distortion-

"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 is a saying - "A truth that's told with bad intent/can beat all
lies you can invent" and in this case the idiosyncratic take on
retrogrades by Newton is one of those things from which it is
impossible for dynamical astronomy to recover should the error be
maintained - it is truly that bad.

The structural reforms to astronomy in order to restore a stable
narrative require a transparent dealing with errors that are going to
remain whether men take notice of them or not and it is despicable
that so many have withdrawn in order to save their jobs and their
pensions as there is no other reason why an entire community would
continue to support ideologies which are exceptionally vacuous .

A community that maintains that rotations fall out of step with each
24 hour day is not so much in big trouble as it is fatally finished
hence the issue is the lack of any sort of astonishment that humans
could behave in such a way.Given the core facts under discussion that
the most basic of basic facts of this great planet are being
challenged,would any person with intelligence and courage act
differently in order to maintain a foothold with known facts ?.

Look at the fact sheet and it makes dismal reading -

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/...s&Object=Earth

There is no external reference for daily rotation as an independent
motion yet here we are in the 21st century with trillions of dollars/
euro worth of equipment and there,right in the middle of it all is
something that sticks out like a sore thumb.

How any person can go to University or a research institution knowing
full well that a specific mistake was made which is getting in the way
of the connection between planetary dynamical cycles and terrestrial
effects ?.The false fact which assigns relevance to stellar
circumpolar motion gives rise to these imaginary empirical concepts
which deflect from what genuine empiricists ought to be studying yet
that only answers part of the issue.Is nobody ashamed that students
face teachers and professors who themselves can't see that when they
propose that rotations fall out of step with 24 hour days that they
are promoting something which undermines the ability to reason
properly ?.

These guys who only consider their jobs and their pensions must face
this issue insofar as ultimately it is our responsibility to correct
errors which crept in and,besides,the satisfaction in working with
correct principles makes itself apparent fairly quickly for those who
are decent and intelligent human beings.

On Oct 14, 1:27*pm, oriel36 wrote:
The most accurate summation of a dismal situation was not written in
the last century but in the 19th century by a writer honest and
intelligent enough to call it as it is.

"To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us
to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an
hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an
hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason
could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
— would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what
rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were
to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so,
simply for the sake of consistency in words?" Edgar Allan Poe

I have previously noted that very few men over the centuries have
dared question the empirical approach to astronomy and terrestrial
sciences even though the empiricists themselves are unfamiliar with
Newton's attempt to mesh the behavior of objects at a human level with
motions of the moon and planets.The problem is that the original
approach never worked yet it is possible to analyse the ingredients
which Newton put together in talking up modeling as opposed to the
translation of observations into interpretative insights such as why
the planets appear to stop and then move temporarily backwards -the
answer being ,of course,that the moving Earth supplies to resolution
and particularly the outer planets .

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The whole foundation of Newton's absolute/relative space and motion
ideology is contrary to the core insight of Copernicus as it purports
a technical non sequitur in that apparent retrogrades are an artifact
of a moving Earth and resolved only by a moving Earth hence the grave
distortion-

"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 is a saying - "A truth that's told with bad intent/can beat all
lies you can invent" and in this case the idiosyncratic take on
retrogrades by Newton is one of those things from which it is
impossible *for dynamical astronomy to recover should the error be
maintained - it is truly that bad.

The structural reforms to astronomy in order to restore a stable
narrative require a transparent dealing with errors that are going to
remain whether men take notice of them or not and it is despicable
that so many have withdrawn in order to save their jobs and their
pensions as there is no other reason why an entire community would
continue to support ideologies which are exceptionally vacuous .

A community that maintains that rotations fall out of step with each
24 hour day is not so much in big trouble as it is fatally finished
hence the issue is the lack of any sort of astonishment that humans
could behave in such a way.Given the core facts under discussion that
the most basic of basic facts of this great planet *are being
challenged,would any person with intelligence and courage act
differently in order to maintain a foothold with known facts ?.

Are you perhaps suggesting that planets should not rotate?

Can we suggest another reason for cosmic stuff rotating?

On Oct 17, 1:41*am, oriel36 wrote:
Is nobody ashamed that students
face teachers and professors who themselves can't see that when they
propose that rotations fall out of step with 24 hour days that they
are promoting something which undermines the ability to reason
properly ?

The Earth is a big heavy ball of rock. So when it rotates, it
shouldn't speed up or slow down unless someone pushes on it hard.

Each year, the Equation of Time shows us that the solar day on the
Earth goes 15 minutes ahead or behind of a uniform 24 hour day of
clock time. That tells us that the apparent motion of the Sun reflects
a compound motion of the Earth, its rotation and its revolution around
the Sun both combined together.

In one year, the Earth makes a full circle of the Sun, changing its
relation to the Sun by 360 degrees. So if you withdraw the revolution
from the Sun from that compound motion, the pure rotation that is left
must fall out of step with the solar day by one each year.

John Savard