The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

Okay,okay, poor proofreading always provides the impetus for others to develop the themes which are scattered in so many directions that it would take quite a while to put some of them in order, including the already accepted insight that we see Venus with its phases as a grandstand view -

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


Anyone who is curios to discover how 'predictions' can be passed off as fact will find it all here where the incomplete methods of the original heliocentric astronomers were railroaded into a highly flawed and reckless agenda..

oriel36 wrote:
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?vîQwYrfmvoQ

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.

You have to realise how your favourite video was made.
The Newtonian calculations place the positions of the planets (and
satellites) in their orbits at a particular time. Similar calculations are
made for the Earth. The DA/DEC coordinates are calculated which places the
planets in the "celestial sphere" as viewed from Earth. These coordinates
can then be transformed into altitude and azimuth to show the view from the
Earth's surface.
Your line of sight observation is just a consequence of the motions of the
planets which can be calculated accurately thanks to Newton.
I was using software like this in the 1980s (when I edited the local
astronomical society newsletter) to point readers towards interesting
events like the "May's planets dance" and this weeks Mars/Venus/Moon
display.
It took me weeks to code the software in the 1980s. Now you can buy much
better software for a few Euros to run on your phone.

Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
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?vîQwYrfmvoQ

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.

You have to realise how your favourite video was made.
The Newtonian calculations place the positions of the planets (and
satellites) in their orbits at a particular time. Similar calculations are
made for the Earth. The DA/DEC coordinates are calculated which places the
planets in the "celestial sphere" as viewed from Earth. These coordinates
can then be transformed into altitude and azimuth to show the view from the
Earth's surface.
Your line of sight observation is just a consequence of the motions of the
planets which can be calculated accurately thanks to Newton.
I was using software like this in the 1980s (when I edited the local
astronomical society newsletter) to point readers towards interesting
events like the "May's planets dance" and this weeks Mars/Venus/Moon
display.
It took me weeks to code the software in the 1980s. Now you can buy much
better software for a few Euros to run on your phone.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/pic...-isle-of-wight

I wish I'd taken this photo.

Now I'm going outside to try and find Uranus.

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:07:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/pic...-isle-of-wight

I wish I'd taken this photo.

Now I'm going outside to try and find Uranus.


The object of the exercise is not just finding planets although I can see that is what makes you tick but to make sense of Venus and its position to the Earth and to the Sun. Venus,although increasing in size as it approaches the Earth's object does not increase in luminosity significantly due to the fact that it has a set of phases attached,something like this -

http://artsandstars.ens-lyon.fr/venu...es.png?lang=en

To account for the Earth's orbital motion is why that SkyTel graphic is excellent and this is where 21st century tools depart from the original heliocentric astronomers as the focus shifts to the Earth's orbital motion in contributing to what we see.

Leave Newton and his agenda to me, stargazers can and should make the effort to distinguish the views we have of the slower moving outer planets from the entirely different perspective of the inner planets.

As for trying to make 'predictions' look like fact or truth, well, this is the real problem which presently haunts humanity and it did start in astronomy where there is a necessary distinction between hypothesis in astronomy and hypothesis as it applies to experimental sciences. Treating the solar system as an isolated entity for explaining planetary orbital dynamics is too dull for me and it should be for everyone else notwithstanding that my interests generally run between cause and effect between planetary motions and terrestrial sciences rather than an underlying cause of motions.

oriel36 wrote:
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:07:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/pic...-isle-of-wight

I wish I'd taken this photo.

Now I'm going outside to try and find Uranus.


The object of the exercise is not just finding planets although I can see
that is what makes you tick but to make sense of Venus and its position
to the Earth and to the Sun. Venus,although increasing in size as it
approaches the Earth's object does not increase in luminosity
significantly due to the fact that it has a set of phases attached,something like this -

http://artsandstars.ens-lyon.fr/venu...es.png?lang=en

To account for the Earth's orbital motion is why that SkyTel graphic is
excellent and this is where 21st century tools depart from the original
heliocentric astronomers as the focus shifts to the Earth's orbital
motion in contributing to what we see.

Leave Newton and his agenda to me, stargazers can and should make the
effort to distinguish the views we have of the slower moving outer
planets from the entirely different perspective of the inner planets.

As for trying to make 'predictions' look like fact or truth, well, this
is the real problem which presently haunts humanity and it did start in
astronomy where there is a necessary distinction between hypothesis in
astronomy and hypothesis as it applies to experimental sciences. Treating
the solar system as an isolated entity for explaining planetary orbital
dynamics is too dull for me and it should be for everyone else
notwithstanding that my interests generally run between cause and effect
between planetary motions and terrestrial sciences rather than an
underlying cause of motions.

You have to realise how your favourite video was made. The Newtonian
calculations place the positions of the planets (and satellites) in their
orbits at a particular time. Similar calculations are made for the Earth.
The RA/DEC coordinates are calculated which places the planets in the
"celestial sphere" as viewed from Earth. These coordinates can then be
transformed into altitude and azimuth to show the view from the Earth's
surface. Your line of sight observation is just a consequence of the
motions of the planets which can be calculated accurately thanks to Newton.
I was using software like this in the 1980s (when I edited the local
astronomical society newsletter) to point readers towards interesting
events like the "May's planets dance" and this weeks Mars/Venus/Moon
display. It took me weeks to code the software in the 1980s. Now you can
buy much better software for a few Euros to run on your phone.

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 8:53:05 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

Well,you didn't type any response but re-pasted your earlier comments.

It is common today to hear empiricists announce that there is no scientific method which is tantamount to stating there is no theory of gravity as 'universal gravitation' was derived from principles where there is no restriction between the motions of objects at a human level and at a celestial scale.

"Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity or its matter, gravitates towards the earth, that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon, and all the planets mutually one towards another, and the comets in like manner towards the sun, we must, in consequence or this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation." Newton

There is absolutely no advantage to such a view given that hypotheses at an experimental level and those at a celestial scale come from separate perspectives and go in opposite directions hence a homogenized view squeezed into timekeeping and celestial sphere geometry makes for a dull and sterile picture. There is actually a point to all this but certainly one person calling attention to a doctrine that has been practiced for a few centuries is hardly going to change things unless others see the advantage of returning to a more balanced view.

oriel36 wrote:
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 8:53:05 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

Well,you didn't type any response but re-pasted your earlier comments.

It is common today to hear empiricists announce that there is no
scientific method which is tantamount to stating there is no theory of
gravity as 'universal gravitation' was derived from principles where
there is no restriction between the motions of objects at a human level
and at a celestial scale.

"Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical
observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the
earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they
severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity or
its matter, gravitates towards the earth, that, on the other hand, our
sea gravitates towards the moon, and all the planets mutually one towards
another, and the comets in like manner towards the sun, we must, in
consequence or this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever
are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation." Newton

There is absolutely no advantage to such a view given that hypotheses at
an experimental level and those at a celestial scale come from separate
perspectives and go in opposite directions hence a homogenized view
squeezed into timekeeping and celestial sphere geometry makes for a dull
and sterile picture. There is actually a point to all this but certainly
one person calling attention to a doctrine that has been practiced for a
few centuries is hardly going to change things unless others see the
advantage of returning to a more balanced view.

I reposted this comment because you haven't responded to it.
You have to realise how your favourite video was made. The Newtonian
calculations place the positions of the planets (and satellites) in their
orbits at a particular time. Similar calculations are made for the Earth.
The RA/DEC coordinates are calculated which places the planets in the
"celestial sphere" as viewed from Earth. These coordinates can then be
transformed into altitude and azimuth to show the view from the Earth's
surface. Your line of sight observation is just a consequence of the
motions of the planets which can be calculated accurately thanks to Newton.
I was using software like this in the 1980s (when I edited the local
astronomical society newsletter) to point readers towards interesting
events like the "May's planets dance" and this weeks Mars/Venus/Moon
display. It took me weeks to code the software in the 1980s. Now you can
buy much better software for a few Euros to run on your phone.

You have to realise that every time you link to that video you are praising
a celestial sphere Newtonian prediction.

On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 8:26:03 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

You have to realise that every time you link to that video you are praising
a celestial sphere Newtonian prediction.

The graphic is wonderful because the apparent motion of the stars Elnath,Castor and Pollux in sequence behind the Sun is due to the Earth's orbital motion alone hence the celestial sphere disappears -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

Most people already can put the position of Venus in context of the central Sun by using its phases but they also have to take into account that the Earth itself is moving as we look in towards the inner solar system and that is where the line-of-sight observations of the annual apparent motion of the stars comes in.

There are several major issues involved so if all you can manage is a celestial sphere universe with you at the center then good for you but much of the issue is the attempt to remove the boundaries between astronomical predictions using the calendar system and the predictive behavior of objects at a human level otherwise known as both the 'theory of gravity' or the 'scientific method'.

oriel36 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 8:26:03 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

You have to realise that every time you link to that video you are praising
a celestial sphere Newtonian prediction.

The graphic is wonderful because the apparent motion of the stars
Elnath,Castor and Pollux in sequence behind the Sun is due to the Earth's
orbital motion alone hence the celestial sphere disappears -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

Most people already can put the position of Venus in context of the
central Sun by using its phases but they also have to take into account
that the Earth itself is moving as we look in towards the inner solar
system and that is where the line-of-sight observations of the annual
apparent motion of the stars comes in.

There are several major issues involved so if all you can manage is a
celestial sphere universe with you at the center then good for you but
much of the issue is the attempt to remove the boundaries between
astronomical predictions using the calendar system and the predictive
behavior of objects at a human level otherwise known as both the 'theory
of gravity' or the 'scientific method'.

There is no celestial sphere universe. The celestial sphere is merely a
convenient fiction used to convert the true positions of the planets and
stars to an Earthly viewpoint.
Everybody except you realises this. But the video IS a celestial sphere
viewpoint only. For a better, although still heliocentric, representation
of the positions of the planets you need an orrery. Using an orrery you
will see that as Newton wrote there are no retrogrades from the Sun.
I noted that you stopped using the orrery website you were praising when
you realised it showed that Newton's description of retrogrades from the
Sun was correct. This is intellectual dishonesty?

On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 10:11:55 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 8:26:03 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

You have to realise that every time you link to that video you are praising
a celestial sphere Newtonian prediction.

The graphic is wonderful because the apparent motion of the stars
Elnath,Castor and Pollux in sequence behind the Sun is due to the Earth's
orbital motion alone hence the celestial sphere disappears -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

Most people already can put the position of Venus in context of the
central Sun by using its phases but they also have to take into account
that the Earth itself is moving as we look in towards the inner solar
system and that is where the line-of-sight observations of the annual
apparent motion of the stars comes in.

There are several major issues involved so if all you can manage is a
celestial sphere universe with you at the center then good for you but
much of the issue is the attempt to remove the boundaries between
astronomical predictions using the calendar system and the predictive
behavior of objects at a human level otherwise known as both the 'theory
of gravity' or the 'scientific method'.

There is no celestial sphere universe. The celestial sphere is merely a
convenient fiction used to convert the true positions of the planets and
stars to an Earthly viewpoint.
Everybody except you realises this. But the video IS a celestial sphere
viewpoint only.

Not so, the apparent motion of the 3 stars in the graphic are due to the orbital motion of the Earth alone hence there is no stellar circumpolar motion involved as that arises from rotation.

The apparent annual motion of the stars behind the Sun sets the groundwork for looking in at the inner solar system and the motion of Venus and Mercury as most already understand them -

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

The original heliocentric astronomers used a less productive system of the Sun's motion through the Zodiac and therefore didn't distinguish between the cause of inner and outer planetary retrogrades -

"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 ..." Galileo

Again, several major issues but none so lovely as the slow acceptance that the phases of Venus represent a grandstand view of a planet moving directly around the Sun.




For a better, although still heliocentric, representation
of the positions of the planets you need an orrery. Using an orrery you
will see that as Newton wrote there are no retrogrades from the Sun.
I noted that you stopped using the orrery website you were praising when
you realised it showed that Newton's description of retrogrades from the
Sun was correct. This is intellectual dishonesty?

Newton's idea is that we see retrogrades from a moving Earth like such as Kepler represented them -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...retrograde.jpg

Sir Isaac thinks if you plonk the Sun in the middle of the diagram the retrogrades disappear and hey presto -

"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

The actual description of Kepler of retrogrades and why they exist is only accounted for by a moving Earth so we allow Newton his false perspective and Kepler his incomplete perspective -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands'you see looped towards the center, with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609

The scientific method was an end rather than a means to an end because it did rely on celestial sphere geometry and a conversion between observations seen from Earth (relative space and motion) converted into observations seen from the Sun (absolute space and motion).