Making astronomy attractive for experimentalists

The original proposal for why planets orbit a central and rotating Sun while moons orbit their rotating parent planet remain quite good as the idea incorporates some type of electromagnetic field between the larger rotating object and the smaller orbiting object -

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler


It is a neat way to connect intrinsic rotation with orbital motions but, of course, it is never that simple. The images from the Fomalhaut system indicate a top-down approach where the solar system's galactic orbital motion influences the relationship between a central star and an orbiting planet creating a default off-center geometry rather than an elliptical planetary geometry -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomalh...oma lhaut.jpg

Rather than 'falling around' the Sun, a planet's variable orbital speed is more like deflecting magnets so the closer to the Sun then the greater the deflection and the greater the planet's speed. It may be that at an enormous distance from the Sun then galactic orbital motion has a greater influence thereby creating hybrid orbits like Pluto.

There is no need to act in the same way creationists act in respect to Genesis as many here insist on truly awful notions like more rotations than 24 hour days or a spinning moon (see Kepler's statement above) but people who choose to do so are wasting their time and everyone else's. The internet brought the end of a grey night for astronomy so it is time to embrace what new observations bring to a discipline that has been badly mangled for so long.

I have found out that "porkbun" owns the domain astronomy.news ... given a recent
news story I read about vaccines.news and climate.news, somehow this thread made
me think of that.

Unfortunately, likely they'll be asking a high price for the domain.

John Savard

The original experimentalists of the Royal Society were quite good in speculating on orbital motions generated by the rotation of its larger parent object -

" As the Sun by it's motion about it's own Axis, is with good reason judged to be the Physical cause of the Primary Planets moving about it; So there is the like reason to believe, that Jupiter and Saturne moving about their Axes, are the Physical cause of their Satellites moving about them, which motion of Jupiter hath been of late discover'd, by the help of a fixed Spot discern'd in him; and we have reason to believe the like of Saturne." John Wallis 1666

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Philo...me_1/Number_16

In this way they inferred Saturn had a daily rotation by the fact it had satellites and likewise Uranus where satellites follows the planet's unique inclination -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE


Having established that the rotation of a larger object imparts orbital motion on a smaller object such as the moon around our home planet, the same principle would apply to the planets around the Sun as they follow, roughly, the Sun's rotational inclination.


Experimentalists, in the mold of Wallace, do have a huge role to play but it looks like they suffer from the squawking and bullying of the aggressive empiricists who live in their heads with their own fictional narrative even when they have run out of road in misusing astronomy.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 2:40:39 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
the aggressive empiricists who live in their heads with their own fictional
narrative even when they have run out of road in misusing astronomy.

For whatever reason, it seems that those scientists bent over their test tubes and
their slide rules, with their complicated equations... who clearly don't get out
enough to enjoy the fresh air, or read enough poetry or listen to enough music...
and yet claim to know something that you don't understand which is of genuine use
and value - have hurt you very much by doing so.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 3:46:22 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

There is no reason why any sane person would question the relationship between a
sunrise/sunset each 24 hour day with one rotation of the planet

Yes, there is. The Equation of Time. In the course of a year, the sundial can be
15 minutes ahead or behind of a mechanical clock.

How long does it take an apple to fall one foot? Longer or shorter, depending on
the season of the year? Or always the same time, so that we can proceed to
formulate laws of motion that can be used?

If real time is what you see on a sundial, and what you see on a clock is mere
"timekeeping", then it would be the former. Rather, we take it to be the latter,
which means that time itself does not depend on the unique interplay between the
rotation and orbit of the particular planet we live on.

John Savard

The speculative idea that the rotation of larger objects impart orbital motion of smaller objects within a range of the larger object's equatorial rotation raises more possibilities than answers.

Obviously the rotational effect of the Earth on the moon or Uranus on its satellites can be stepped up to the Sun's rotational effects on those two planets or indeed the rest of the planets in the solar system. The Earth's inclination of Equator and poles is roughly 66 1/2 degrees referenced off the Equatorial planet and about 8 degrees for Uranus which makes it far easier to work with dynamics than the tradition view of 23 1/2 degrees and 82 degrees respectively.

No danger that the theorists can or would spot the delightful logic which opens up the elements of attraction and repulsion which comprises electromagnetic signatures and apply them at large scales. The problem with 'universal attraction' is that is was so narrow and tried to upscale experimental sciences to abruptly and without proper consideration.