Kepler's Somnium

https://books.google.ie/books?id=OdC...ge&q&f=fa lse

It can be dismaying sometimes knowing how much of a tangle exists without any clear indication that anyone,even with the current imaging power and range, has any interest, skill and courage to put many of the elements straight or together.

Kepler's science fiction novel 'Somnium' contains not only valuable insights but also lots of falsehoods that are mostly a product of the Sun's annual motion through the Zodiac as a foundation.

The key to untangling observations is the unequal noon cycle which represents two distinct rotations working in combination with natural noon as an anchor. To be fair to Kepler he did recognize the polar day/night cycle but assigns variable natural noon lengths to the Earth's rotation speeding up and slowing down over its orbit. The actual cause of variations is that the planet turns slowly and unevenly to the Sun as a function of the Earth's orbital motion where the North/South poles represent these orbital traits. I assume that these surface latitudes dictate orbital elements of the Earth for they neither tilt towards or away from the Sun but turn parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth by maintaining a fixed direction in space.

Kepler repeats the solar vs sidereal fiction by relinquishing the central Sun as a reference for the day/night cycle, however, it was a custom at the time to describe orbital elements as the Sun moving through the constellations instead of the more accurate transition of the stars from left to right of the Sun or from an evening to morning appearance.

So much to discuss and so little around to discuss it with.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 1:31:01 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
however, it was a custom at the time to describe orbital elements as the Sun
moving through the constellations instead of the more accurate transition of the
stars from left to right of the Sun or from an evening to morning appearance.

Is saying that the Sun went through Scorpio really *more* anti-Copernican than
saying that Scorpio changed from vespertine to matutine?

John Savard