False hypothesis for proof of axiom
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

False hypothesis for proof of axiom

#1
November 18th 18, 07:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Gerald Kelleher external usenet poster Posts: 1,551
False hypothesis for proof of axiom

The axiom is that the Earth orbits the Sun along with the other planets while turning to the Sun each day as a function of daily rotation.

The original geocentric astronomers founded their hypotheses on the observation that the Sun passed directly through the constellations while the planets displayed direct/retrograde motions with the Earth as stationary and central.

In a moving Earth/Sun centred system, the Sun's motion around the Earth daily is due to the rotation of the Earth hence the axiom is proved. The orbital motion of the Earth is proved by an alternative hypothesis based on the observation that stars, in a line-of-sight transition, move from left to right of the Sun.

Now the false hypothesis and the basis for a base/step mathematical induction -

"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

There is no geocentric/heliocentric equivalency as the "sun about the earth" refers to daily rotation and can only be answered in rotational terms so it cannot be equated with the Earth's orbital motion around the central Sun..

#2
November 19th 18, 07:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Gerald Kelleher external usenet poster Posts: 1,551
False hypothesis for proof of axiom

Imagine trying to make sense of outside motions while being on a carousel yet this is exactly what celestial sphere proponents did by giving a North/South/East/West (RA/Dec) framework priority -

The foundation of astrophysics is based on a notion that the Sun about the Earth and the Earth about the Sun are equivalent in terms of observations however the Sun around the Earth is taken up by daily rotation whereas the Sun through the constellations is the closest to the Earth's orbital motion.

It is no wonder people over the last 20 years in this newsgroup haven't a clue how to deal with Huygen's geocentric/heliocentric equivalency that is related to the Equation of Time even though it is flawed -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 signs
or makes an entire revolution in the ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckoned from noon to noon,
are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equal to that revolution: And
this is called the Equal or Mean day, according to which the watches
are to be set; and therefore the hour or minute showed by the watches,
though they be perfectly just and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are showed by the Sun, or are reckoned
according to its motion. But this difference is regular, and is
otherwise called the Equation of Time.." Huygens

While entertaining in its own way, most if not all of you imitate Newton who made things up as he went along but, unlike the nuisances here, he did it in a very careful way - more like the actions of a politicians filling in deficiencies and gaps while appearing to affirm astronomical or timekeeping principles, even flawed ones.

I have seen the ground where mathematicians can work productively and with great creativity and that is what is so dismaying, they would rather lean on old familiar junk like solar vs sidereal time than act to clean up a mess they created.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Boston - proof of another false flag Bast[_2_] Misc 3 May 6th 13 12:16 PM Principia of Newton in 1687 was first axiom set over physicsChapt16.18 Axioms for Physics in history of science #1501 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 14th 13 11:54 PM The Axiom of Simultaneity (was Speed of light) Androcles[_80_] Amateur Astronomy 11 August 20th 12 08:35 AM The Axiom of Simultaneity (was Speed of light) Androcles[_80_] Amateur Astronomy 2 August 10th 12 10:47 PM eye relief Celestron Axiom 19 vs 23 mm Peewee Amateur Astronomy 0 December 17th 06 08:27 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 AM.