A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Anatomy of a conceptual disaster



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 24th 17, 06:53 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Anatomy of a conceptual disaster

In the relativity forum there is a diversified bunch but they all thread the same wheel in neither getting closer nor further from the truth. The issue wouldn't be Newton's description of the Equation of Time as a definition of time but rather Huygen's description which Newton tried to imitate -


" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd 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 equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation " Huygens

The first line is where a lot of damage was done insofar as it introduced not only a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency but omits the fact the Equation of Time(keeping) is a child of the calendar system as it relies on the observed passage of the Sun across the observer's meridian including February 29th.

Of greater consequence is the natural inequality itself as it registers two separate rotations in one observation, assuming daily rotation is constant while the natural inequality is an effect of the variable orbital speed of the Earth in terms of the other rotation responsible for the polar day/night cycle and the seasons where it combines with intrinsic rotation (variation is speeds across latitudes).

Now people can move to the relativity forum which represents theoretical junk dumped into the celestial arena as astronomy even though the practitioners know nothing of the technical details which comprise Newton's definitions which are not definitions at all. There are no special people, no icons, no genius,no celebrity, just the opportunity to work on a new view of the planets and moons as they circle their respective centers with the cumulative effects giving more expansive perspectives and especially with electromagnetic influences.

  #12  
Old May 31st 17, 07:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Anatomy of a conceptual disaster

The major difficulty in the transition from geocentricity to observations seen from a moving Earth was how to place the antecedent geocentric observations into a Sun centered framework. The short answer is that it is impossible.

The geocentric observations of the outer planets had the familiar looping motions but without the aid of telescopes it was difficult to take account of the size and luminosity increases which support a moving Earth -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/100...otated_big.jpg

When the images are rendered in time lapse it becomes easy enough to gauge the faster motion of the Earth overtaking the outer planets and causing them to fall behind in view -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/011...2000_tezel.gif


Returning to the use of the geocentric observations, Kepler had used the looping motions and retained the notion of a moving Sun in tandem with those observations -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...retrograde.jpg

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum, Kepler

The framework for retrogrades and their transition to heliocentric modelling does not work for the inner planets as phases attend observations which prohibit a looping motion without the central Sun as a focus -

http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cd...s_of_venus.jpg


I would have expected that a few would take pride in the elaborate reasoning using imaging which shows the shortfalls in the multiple perspectives between geocentricity and original heliocentricity, the mutations of empiricism and more importantly the adjustments to the original framework used by the first heliocentric astronomers to 21st century perspectives. It means readers must be accustomed to at least 4 different system's before coming to a clearer and less tangled perspective but that being said it is just as easy to adopt the 21st century imaging tools and learn the narratives that way..






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conceptual Problems IV Knecht Research 2 December 9th 08 05:03 PM
Conceptual problem jacob navia[_3_] Research 1 December 9th 08 05:01 PM
anatomy of a galaxy Matt Menge Astronomy Misc 3 June 1st 08 08:17 AM
Anatomy of a Crank John Schutkeker Space Shuttle 17 July 30th 05 10:25 PM
anatomy of a disaster Terrell Miller Space Shuttle 8 August 24th 03 07:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.