The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

Good morning Quadibloc

I seldom if ever read Garald's posts in detail so thank you for pointing out the religious component in his material. I believe he is based in Northern Ireland - just about the only parts of the UK where problems between different "brands" of Christianity is a daily problem.

The combination of his religion, his placement on the autistic spectrum and his monumentally unsuccessful attempts to win over scientific hearts and minds make Gerald one strange person!

My wife, like me a science graduate, just read his latest posting. She summarised it in one word - "Meaningless".

Anyone can submit the idea that terrestrial ballistics can scale up to planetary motions and introduce the experimental method as a means to obliterate the differences but it is severely overreaching when you look at it with 21st century knowledge.

For one thing the Sun moves through space hence the planets spend part of their orbits moving with the Sun in our galactic orbital motion and sometimes going in the opposite direction. There is something appealing about this in a way that can be loosely associated with an experimental analogy in that the variations in orbital speed may be due to the same type of deflection which occurs when two poles of a magnet are brought in close proximity. The Fomalhaut system indicates this but I always left it as an open area -

https://bitacoradegalileo.files.word...hipotetico.jpg

It can be said that the 'scientific method' was the only thing which Newton introduced under the guise of 'universal gravitation' but it closes off more approaches than it opens notwithstanding that it destroyed the methods and insights he had before him from the original heliocentric astronomers.

The definition of insanity is pumping out the same tired old diatribe and expecting a different result from all the other 1000s of times.

I genuinely find it quite sad that Gerald has devoted the better part of a decade on this mission. Thanks to Google it is possible to identify the many places he has posted minor variations of the same material - with pretty much the same results. Virtually nobody buys into his vision and his refusal to answer direct questions about how, where and why he parts company with main-stream astronomical thought annoys the very people he is attempting to get on his side!

Surely even he must realise that his current tactics are not working?

On Sunday, 22 February 2015 13:03:36 UTC+1, wrote:
The definition of insanity is pumping out the same tired old diatribe and expecting a different result from all the other 1000s of times.

A sociopath, by any other name, would smell as 1461.
[With all due apologies to The Bard]

Hell hath no fury like a sociopath scorn'd.
[With all due apologies to William Congreve]

He was the worst of sociopaths, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of darkness, it was the winter of [our] despair..
[With all due apologies to Charles Dickens.TTC]

God grant him the serenity to accept what cannot be changed.
And the grace to accept the idiocy of [his own] blind ignorance.
[With all due apologies to Reinhold Niebuhr et al]

In the absence of two brain cells to rub together there can be no light.
[With all due apologies to anybody patient enough to have read thus far] ;ø))

oriel36 wrote:
Anyone can submit the idea that terrestrial ballistics can scale up to
planetary motions and introduce the experimental method as a means to
obliterate the differences but it is severely overreaching when you look
at it with 21st century knowledge.

When you use terrestrial ballistics to predict planetary motions you get
this.


http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 7:05:06 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Anyone can submit the idea that terrestrial ballistics can scale up to
planetary motions and introduce the experimental method as a means to
obliterate the differences but it is severely overreaching when you look
at it with 21st century knowledge.

When you use terrestrial ballistics to predict planetary motions you get
this.


http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

The information within that graphic should delight astronomers by virtue that it adjusts a perspective away from the motion of the Sun through the Zodiac used by the original heliocentric astronomers and towards the apparent motion of the stars behind a fixed Sun -

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum Kepler

The Earth's own orbital input is accounted for leaving a grandstand view of Venus and Mercury as they swing out from behind the Sun and then back in.


The Pope had every reason to object at the time of the Galileo affair insofar as predictive astronomy incorporates the motion of the Sun through a celestial sphere rather than the proofs for the motions of the Earth which rely on relative motions of the planets to each other and to the central Sun. The danger with trying to use the predictive framework of RA/Dec which predicts astronomical events for everything was that 'predictions' became associated with truth or fact. You can see it today with the 'climate change' hoopla where convictions are based on predictions which are then proposed as 'fact'.

It can be dismaying to see the modification which splits retrogrades into separate perspectives seen from a moving Earth where the motion of the outer planets are accounted for differently than the inner planets. There are several major issues before our generation and none of it to do with the narrative which is expressed to the wider population as 'fact', historically technically and bottom line.

The definition of insanity is continuing to pump out the same tired old diatribe to the same tiny audience and expecting a different result from all the other 1000s of times.

I genuinely find it quite sad that Gerald has devoted the better part of a decade on this mission. Thanks to Google it is possible to identify the many places he has posted minor variations of the same material - with pretty much zero success. Virtually nobody buys into his vision and his refusal to answer direct questions about the where and why of his differences he claims to have with main-stream astronomical thought annoys the very people he is attempting to get on his side!

oriel36 wrote:
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 7:05:06 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Anyone can submit the idea that terrestrial ballistics can scale up to
planetary motions and introduce the experimental method as a means to
obliterate the differences but it is severely overreaching when you look
at it with 21st century knowledge.

When you use terrestrial ballistics to predict planetary motions you get
this.


http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

The information within that graphic should delight astronomers by virtue
that it adjusts a perspective away from the motion of the Sun through the
Zodiac used by the original heliocentric astronomers and towards the
apparent motion of the stars behind a fixed Sun -

It does nothing of the sort. It uses Newtonian physics to calculate the
position of the planets and match these to the stellar background. Co
ordinates are then transformed to altitude and azimuth to produce the
display.

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:20:35 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 7:05:06 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Anyone can submit the idea that terrestrial ballistics can scale up to
planetary motions and introduce the experimental method as a means to
obliterate the differences but it is severely overreaching when you look
at it with 21st century knowledge.

When you use terrestrial ballistics to predict planetary motions you get
this.


http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

The information within that graphic should delight astronomers by virtue
that it adjusts a perspective away from the motion of the Sun through the
Zodiac used by the original heliocentric astronomers and towards the
apparent motion of the stars behind a fixed Sun -

It does nothing of the sort.

The graphic shows the Earth's orbital motion in terms of Elnath,Castor and Pollux moving behind the Sun as the Earth plows through space with the central Sun as a fixed reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFr...ature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

Do you somehow doubt the line-of-sight observation which follows the line of the Earth's orbital path along with the motions of the planets taking roughly the same line of motion ?.



It uses Newtonian physics to calculate the
position of the planets and match these to the stellar background. Co
ordinates are then transformed to altitude and azimuth to produce the
display.

There are several different issues involved including the use of celestial sphere geometry within the calendar framework to predict astronomical events without dumping everything into the framework.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ematic.svg.png


Where you see 'universal gravitation' I see an overreaching method where the use of experimental analogies restrict rather than help with observations.. It was fine when all your community knew about the solar system was that it existed as an isolated entity but now they have to deal with the solar system's galactic orbital motion with the distinct possibility that planetary orbital speeds are conditioned by some element between our motion around the Sun and our motion through space with the Sun around the galaxy.

With everything locked up in a celestial sphere bubble so you and your buddies hype astronomy as a stargazing exercise alone, a more adventurous path is available. The guys in the early 20th century had their shot but hadn't a clue when Newton was trying to do but at least now you know what he was actually doing.

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

I can't see why there is this resistance to the limitations of experimental analogies where they are useful but not crucial, for instance, jumping from an apple falling from a tree to the motion of celestial objects is drastic beyond credulity or shooting the same object from a cannon.

It is not what he tried to do but the way he did it and although he was fairly open about how he saw retrogrades and their resolution, it is nothing like how astronomers see these things and especially not today.

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:53:18 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

It can be dismaying to see the modification which splits retrogrades into
separate perspectives seen from a moving Earth where the motion of the outer
planets are accounted for differently than the inner planets.

I thought you, not the Newtonians, were proposing just such a modification, a few
months ago.

John Savard