The Lenten Pretzel

It is also known as the Panis Quadregesimalis -

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

It represents the motion of Mars seen from a moving Earth over a 16 year period -

"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 " Kepler Astronomia Nova 1609

How fortunate students are today where they can see the moving Earth overtaking the outer planets Jupiter and Saturn as a celebration of contemporary tools -

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


The system they used included the motion of the Sun against the background stars using demarcations of the Zodiac however a new and more productive perspective is possible in order to appreciate the motion of the inner planets. Accounting for the Earth's orbital motion by using the apparent motion of the stars behind the central Sun instead of the Earth's motion through the Zodiac sets up a grandstand view of the inner planets.

The lack of acceptance of this apart from the other body of work really hurts but with Lent approaching and in mind, it is perhaps a reminder that a little sacrifice does no harm whether for 40 days or twenty years.

It is easy enough to demonstrate that Newton didn't have a good handle on the methods of the original astronomers and their conclusions. The proof of the Earth's orbital motion relied heavily on the resolution of retrograde motion as the outer planets fell temporarily behind in view as the faster Earth overtook them due to our faster motion in an inner orbital circuit -

APOD: 2001 December 20 - Jupiter and Saturn Pas de Deux

Newton tried to create a hypothetical observer on the Sun to account for retrogrades which in turn set up his notion of absolute/relative space and motion -

"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

Not a digression but today is the first day of Lent and Kepler had created the 'Lenten Pretzel' plotting the motion of Mars as seen from a moving Earth -

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

"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 " Kepler Astronomia Nova 1609

Newton's notion is that Kepler's diagram is geocentric and if you plonk the Sun in the middle of the diagram the retrogrades disappear - a sort of double modeling if you like which explains his idiosyncratic version of retrogrades in the quote above along with his absolute/relative 'definitions' -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._diagram-2.jpg

Of course I am more interested in dealing with a huge modification necessary to account for inner planetary retrogrades using partitioning perspectives as both Copernicus and Kepler used a less productive approach than one available today but at least readers can have Newton's flawed scheme to survey for what it is worth. People should not see it as an attack but something which deals with absolute/relative 'definitions' as Newton intended including the trick of using the Ra/Dec system which provides the 'predictions' element as absolute/relative time.

I can't see how the cycle can be broken other than an honest overview of the several major issues that flow the material as it will ultimately require people to deal with these matters in a balanced and intelligent manner. It is not an attempt to undermine anyone but to demonstrate that there are new ways to approach astronomy and the causes behind the Earth's daily and orbital motions.

It is also the Lenten period when I choose to wind down my participation here as a matter of self-discipline.

oriel36 wrote:
It is easy enough to demonstrate that Newton didn't have a good handle on
the methods of the original astronomers and their conclusions.

Here's a demonstration the Newton was right.
A rather clunky graphic showing what you can do to predict planetary
motion using his equations.

http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 6:19:14 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
It is easy enough to demonstrate that Newton didn't have a good handle on
the methods of the original astronomers and their conclusions.

Here's a demonstration the Newton was right.
A rather clunky graphic showing what you can do to predict planetary
motion using his equations.

http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

The graphic is fine and probably the best I have seen in accounting for the Earth's orbital motion via the apparent motion of the stars in procession behind the central Sun. More importantly the graphic shows Venus and Mercury swinging out to their widest point from our grandstand perspective before swinging back in front of the central Sun -

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

In those set of images , Venus is planet seen close to the left side of the Sun from our point of view (evening) but disappears behind the Sun's glare before emerging to the right side of the Sun (morning).

If you want to help your fellow empiricists then let Newton's flawed point of view on retrogrades as absolute/relative space and motion stand as opposed to the early 20th century guys who buried the world deeper in jargon because they didn't know what he meant.

oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 6:19:14 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
It is easy enough to demonstrate that Newton didn't have a good handle on
the methods of the original astronomers and their conclusions.

Here's a demonstration the Newton was right.
A rather clunky graphic showing what you can do to predict planetary
motion using his equations.

http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

The graphic is fine and probably the best I have seen in accounting for
the Earth's orbital motion via the apparent motion of the stars in
procession behind the central Sun. More importantly the graphic shows
Venus and Mercury swinging out to their widest point from our grandstand
perspective before swinging back in front of the central Sun -

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

In those set of images , Venus is planet seen close to the left side of
the Sun from our point of view (evening) but disappears behind the Sun's
glare before emerging to the right side of the Sun (morning).

If you want to help your fellow empiricists then let Newton's flawed
point of view on retrogrades as absolute/relative space and motion stand
as opposed to the early 20th century guys who buried the world deeper in
jargon because they didn't know what he meant.

So you admit that this prediction using Newton's equations is correct. This
is therefore a good demonstration that he was right.

Comment on this please. Either Newton was correct or he wasn't.The graphic
you love so much was made using his equations and was a prediction as you
can see from the original date.
If the graphic is valid Newton was right.

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 11:05:11 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 6:19:14 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
It is easy enough to demonstrate that Newton didn't have a good handle on
the methods of the original astronomers and their conclusions.

Here's a demonstration the Newton was right.
A rather clunky graphic showing what you can do to predict planetary
motion using his equations.

http://youtu.be/MdFrE7hWj0A

The graphic is fine and probably the best I have seen in accounting for
the Earth's orbital motion via the apparent motion of the stars in
procession behind the central Sun. More importantly the graphic shows
Venus and Mercury swinging out to their widest point from our grandstand
perspective before swinging back in front of the central Sun -

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

In those set of images , Venus is planet seen close to the left side of
the Sun from our point of view (evening) but disappears behind the Sun's
glare before emerging to the right side of the Sun (morning).

If you want to help your fellow empiricists then let Newton's flawed
point of view on retrogrades as absolute/relative space and motion stand
as opposed to the early 20th century guys who buried the world deeper in
jargon because they didn't know what he meant.

So you admit that this prediction using Newton's equations is correct. This
is therefore a good demonstration that he was right.


If you can't understand the flawed view of retrogrades in terms of his absolute/relative space and motion then you are not in a position to even comment on Newton's agenda as the deficiency is yours -

"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

If you believe that statement is right you will miss the entire point of retrogrades and what they represent along with being unable to appreciate the dual perspectives which separate inner from outer planetary motions seen from Earth.

Normally people would enjoy matching Kepler's Lenten Pretzel to contemporary imaging of Mars as well as his comments on his diagram affirming how Copernicus first appreciated what the looping motions actually represent,they may even get some satisfaction that they can appreciate something that Newton couldn't which leaves you and his followers to pick up the pieces of the catastrophe we inherited. There is only a small window of opportunity to deal with the matter as a genuine flaw otherwise it will exist as a dishonesty behind everything said and done.

It shouldn't be an unpleasant experience as it has been up to now because the attempt to conceal that nothing is wrong by stating 'Newton was right' goes against those in your community who took a more balanced and honest view -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results." Rouse Ball 1908