The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:38:06 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

"What appears in the planets as [the alternation of] retrograde and direct motion is due, not to their motion, but to the earth's. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices [to explain] so many apparent irregularities in the heaven." Copernicus 1514

Copernicus had it right, retrogrades are due, not to the motion of the planets, but rather the motion of the Earth alone. Likewise, from the surface of Mars you would also see retrograde motion of the other planets, due to the motion of Mars, and the same can be said of all the other planets, when viewed for their surfaces.

On the other hand, in our solar system, the Sun itself essentially has no orbital motion, so apparent retrogrades of the planets would not exist, none of the planets would appear to slow down and/or appear to travel 'backwards' relative to the fixed stars. Even you should be able to understand this. Newton certainly did...

It is taking a sledgehammer to the original insights on retrogrades and especially now when they can be partitioned between the inner and outer planets seen only from a moving Earth.

At their closest approach, the outer planets are brightest -

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

At the closest approach,when seen, the inner planets are darkest -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120607.html

The thugs who smashed the historical artworks have nothing on what you and the rest have done to astronomy, everything from the most basic facts on rotation and orbital motion, to the moon's motion and this ,where the Earth's orbital motion alone explains the motions of the planets within our solar system as they move with our planet around the Sun.

So again,you get to see your behavior as I see it , not to the sour taunts at each other but to the gorgeous reasoning that goes into accepting the Earth turns and goes around the Sun -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Pr8gs7lxY

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:19:42 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 11:05:50 AM UTC-8, wsne... wrote:

Obviously, you are the coward, unable to admit your culpability or take
responsibility for anything you say or do.

I see you snipped out the part where I said...

palsing's comment snipped

Your comment was unimportant and not germane to the discussion, so it was snipped, twice.

The following comment of yours, puts you into the warmingista group:

"I do, however, think there is a problem that will require lower CO2 emissions, per capita."

However, the following comment of yours, puts you into the "denier" group:

"I was only pointing out that any situation in Bangladesh has nothing at all to
do with my own activities,.."

Taken together, your two comments put you into the hypocrite group.

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:38:06 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

"What appears in the planets as [the alternation of] retrograde and direct motion is due, not to their motion, but to the earth's. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices [to explain] so many apparent irregularities in the heaven." Copernicus 1514

Copernicus had it right, retrogrades are due, not to the motion of the planets, but rather the motion of the Earth alone. Likewise, from the surface of Mars you would also see retrograde motion of the other planets, due to the motion of Mars, and the same can be said of all the other planets, when viewed for their surfaces.


When seen from Mars, Earth will show phases just as Venus shows almost a full range from our moving planet. I do not know if it is possible to use one of the Mars vehicles to photograph the grandstand view of our planet but it will look something like this -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

With many,many important issues requiring attention including how to use experimental analogies productively without mangling hypotheses as they exist, there is no time or room for brute mentalities trying to justify something that can't -

"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 are two,count them, two sets of perspectives which account for retrograde motion with a moving Earth being the crucial element of their resolution.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:21:54 -0800 (PST),
wrote this crap:

Please don't feed the Gerald Kelleher troll.

Who's Gerald?

It is a definite observation that there is really no big mission out there for people to admire and get behind and certainly trying to pass off a prediction as fact under the variant of 'climate change' is pretty uncouth even if it is a central theme of the 'scientific method' to make such a drastic leap from prediction to fact.

Few have really known what was so drastic in dissolving the boundaries between hypotheses as they exist as the original astronomers knew them and those which occupy experimental sciences but ultimately the astronomical arena became subjected to ideas of the celestial arena instead of the more productive connections between planetary dynamics/solar system structure and terrestrial sciences. It became almost a take-my-word-for-it endeavor and again, few have really seen the tragedy as it really exists -

"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 phaenomena -- a law which, merely because it does so enable us to account for these phaenomena, 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 a 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


Even Poe was wide of the mark while containing a lot of valid statements. It is the same thing today when people hear about the meaningless ' Theory of Everything' however 'universal gravitation' created the original problem when going forward with astronomy/terrestrial sciences as separate to experimental sciences/technological development.

Please don't feed the Gerald Kelleher troll. You will be wasting your time and, more importantly, you will be encouraging Gerald to continue even longer in his self-harming activities.

It is obvious that Gerald, because of the severe and life-long condition from which he suffers, is almost entirely unable to accept anything that differs from his own bizarre view of the world. Changing his mind is simply not possible. Getting him to respond to questions is also impossible.

The way he endlessly repeats minor variations of the same nonsense is just one symptom of his illness. He quite literally cannot stop himself from posting and it is both instructive and frightening to examine how often he posts and it is hard to imagine that he has a normal life as in paid employment, a family and other leisure activities.
Gerald has no interest at all in debate - in the normally accepted meaning of the word. Of course I remain unconvinced that he really believes some of the crud he keeps chanting out. Some of his favourite topics from the past have been quietly dropped from his menu and this possibly reflects that he has finally realised that on that particular issue he was wrong?

Universal gravitation or its real status as the scientific method comes down to this -

"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

The 'rule' became the 'rule of law' which in turn became 'the law of gravitation' is quite a sight for any person able to follow what is being said at more than a few different levels. For my part, the current narrative stretching from big bang to black hole can continue until it fades under its own weight however in the background a huge amount of effort is needed to restore a clear distinction between analogies at an experimental scale with large scale dynamics and structure. Who,in their right minds, would want to make such a drastic leap between experiments and universal characteristics hence both the scientific method and universal gravitation come under a genuine spotlight rather than the meaningless jargon of the early 20th century ?..

On Sunday, 1 March 2015 22:35:17 UTC+1, wrote:
Please don't feed the Gerald Kelleher troll. You will be wasting your time and, more importantly, you will be encouraging Gerald to continue even longer in his self-harming activities.

It is obvious that Gerald, because of the severe and life-long condition from which he suffers, is almost entirely unable to accept anything that differs from his own bizarre view of the world. Changing his mind is simply not possible. Getting him to respond to questions is also impossible.

The way he endlessly repeats minor variations of the same nonsense is just one symptom of his illness. He quite literally cannot stop himself from posting and it is both instructive and frightening to examine how often he posts and it is hard to imagine that he has a normal life as in paid employment, a family and other leisure activities.
Gerald has no interest at all in debate - in the normally accepted meaning of the word. Of course I remain unconvinced that he really believes some of the crud he keeps chanting out. Some of his favourite topics from the past have been quietly dropped from his menu and this possibly reflects that he has finally realised that on that particular issue he was wrong?


1461 is a verbose, sociopathic, self-obsessed bull****ter unworthy of anyone's attention except his latest psychiatric nurse. Appealing directly to him [or others] in the vain hope that he will desist is a completely lost cause. Every attack on his colossal midden is rebuffed with increased energy. He lives on other's attention like a vampire on the donations in a blood bank. He accumulates and stacks his pseudo-scientific dross like an obsessed hoarder collects and constantly re-sorts their garbage.

No form of words will ever dent his total self-obsession. It wouldn't surprise me if he types his watery diarrhoea while seated in front of a very large [and no doubt filthy] mirror. It's all about HIM! Nothing else.

Unless responding to 1461 amuses you [and everybody needs a hobby] I suggest you move on to doing something far more interesting. The alternative is to become tiresome even to those here who would rather be arguing over the minutiae of their online willy dimensions. A lowering of s.a.a standards which may safely be placed at 1461's door behind the vast stacks of worthless and rotting junk he drops literally everywhere he goes:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/q8gkrsp

On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 2:28:10 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 10:52:42 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
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. 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.

You keep making these mistakes because you have no ability to visualise.
The motion of the only star in the graphic is due to rotation.
Approximately one degree per day.

All you have done is tell me you didn't bother to wait until Castor and
Pollux entered the graphic.

There are 3 stars in that graphic and they appear to move because the
Earth is moving in its orbit around the Sun so certain stars will always
be lost behind the central Sun. It is a single star, in this case Sirius,
which defines the Earth's orbital position in space by virtue that when
the Earth returns to the same point in its orbital circuit, Sirius
emerges just far enough to be seen which observers see as a dawn event
and that point of light at the bottom left of the image -

http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast...liacsirius.JPG

I would never be able to do justice to the interlocking components where
planetary dynamics intersect but it shouldn't stop others from doing so..
It is a painful experience to see the perspectives of the original
heliocentric astronomers treated so cruelly because even if perspectives
are always incomplete and need adjusting their views should be inspected
with the honesty they intended and that even includes Newton's flawed view.

I don't believe for a single second that nothing can be done but when it
does it will occur at this technical and historical juncture. What more
is there to say ?, in other times you could have your celestial sphere
along with stargazing but there is not a glimmer of recognition as to the
principles which have vanished from view even though they still exist.

There is something of both a joy and a sadness attached to these things
that no amount of dour and sour attacks can diminish because the greater
part of human endeavor is to experience these things in full.

Actually I wrote rotation when it should have been orbital motion for the
star movement.
So in this one case you were right and I was wrong.

I normally extend these things as a courtesy when I withdraw from people who lack intelligence and integrity,not to the person themselves but rather the forum as a productive and creative entity found nowhere else.




http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

One of the nicer insights of 2014 and 500 years after the Commentariolis of Copernicus was the accounting of the Earth's orbital motion wrt to the inner planets by using the line of sight observation as the stars moved behind the Sun in sequence thereby setting the Sun up as a central reference for the bare motion of the inner planets around the Sun -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg

Wistfulness destroys productivity and creativity so I prefer to give credit to modern imaging in providing this new narrative where humanity looks out and in from our position in the solar system and makes sense of observations.


It doesn't matter if people can't compete, the object of the exercise is to find people with strengths I do not have and make genuine advances to astronomy.

There is zero point trying to debate any issue with Gerald. He doesn't answer questions, cannot change his views and it seems very unlikely he even reads what other people write!

Please consider joining the Oriel36 boycott!