The commentariolis

"The third is the motion in declination. For the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the axis of the great circle, but is inclined to it at an angle that intercepts a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2ø. Therefore, while the center of the earth always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of the great circle, the poles of the earth rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers equidistant from the axis of the great circle." Copernicus

http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm

It is much easier,with the benefit of sequential imaging,to adjust the explanation which Copernicus give for polar rotation equidistant from the ecliptic axis to a separate surface rotation to the Sun aside from and in addition to daily rotation.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

The reason the Sun appears to scribe greater and smaller arcs over the course of a year with the variations becoming greater towards the higher latitudes and decreasing towards the Equator is due to that orbital surface rotation as the poles are seen to turn in a circle,an idea presently taken up by Precession of the Equinoxes -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg


Any difficulties disappear once the astronomer looks at Uranus and applies the same orbital surface component to the Earth as a point of departure for a number of necessary modifications to the view of Copernicus.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 11:46:32 PM UTC-6, oriel36 quoted, in part:

the poles of the earth rotate, both of them describing small circles about
centers equidistant from the axis of the great circle.

And, of course, Copernicus meant by this that the relationship between the poles, the Ecliptic, and the Sun, changed as the Earth moved in its orbit around the Sun, not, as some might misunderstand his words as here translated to English, that the poles of the Earth change the direction to which they point (of course they always point to Polaris).

So while the Earth does not... careen (which is what I think you believe "tilt" to always mean, and so you object to that word)... it sometimes is inclined towards the Sun, and sometimes away from it, as Copernicus here affirmed.

John Savard

On Tue, 06 May 2014 22:46:32 -0700, oriel36 wrote the same old stuff.


Why are you wasting your life away with this futile crusade?

"The radius is assumed to have a length imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament; consequently the sun appears to revolve with this motion, as if the earth lay in the center of the universe. However, this appearance is caused by the motion not of the sun but of the earth, so that, for example, when the earth is in the sign of Capricornus, the sun is seen diametrically opposite in Cancer, and so on. " Copernicus ,Commentariolis

This section requires a sizable modification as it relies on the contemporary Copernican outlook of the annual motion of all celestial objects through the signs including the Sun.

The modification is based on shifting the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations due to the orbital motion of the Earth as Copernicus describes to a new outlook based on the apparent motion of the stars behind the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

This is a precursor of an approach to a much larger structural entity by looking at the change in positions of external galaxies behind the galactic center due to the solar system motion through space and around the galactic axis thereby defining our position in the galaxy just as the re-appearance of Sirius from behind the Sun fixes the Earth's position within our solar system.Of course it is not quite as easy as that but these are the outlines and the approach.

It relies on readers with a capacity for historical and technical details and an inkling that there is a lot of productive work ahead by re-adjusting perspectives using 21st century imaging and graphical tools.

On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:27:29 AM UTC-6, oriel36 quoted, in part:

"The radius is assumed to have a length imperceptible in comparison with the
height of the firmament;

as that assumption is correct, without forgetting that the Earth does revolve around the Sun, the fixed stars can still be used to establish meaningful directions from the Earth.

Since the Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, the direction from the Sun to the Earth does not change uniformly with time, and so the direction from the Earth to the Sun can't be used as the basis of an Earth-centered coordinate system in which meaningful physical laws can be stated.

Of course, to you, no doubt the above was just pretentious empiricist gibberish...

John Savard

oriel36 wrote:

The modification is based on shifting the apparent motion of the Sun
through the constellations due to the orbital motion of the Earth as
Copernicus describes to a new outlook based on the apparent motion of the
stars behind the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A



This video is a simulation using Newtonian calculations of events which you
could not have seen from Ireland's latitude.
It shows the illogicality of your views by drawing attention to the fact
that such simulations are accurate (although this one is a bit crude).
If at walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

Newton was right and you are wrong.

And yet you use a Newtonian simulation to try to prove your case that
Newton was wrong!

On Thursday, May 8, 2014 1:57:00 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:



The modification is based on shifting the apparent motion of the Sun

through the constellations due to the orbital motion of the Earth as

Copernicus describes to a new outlook based on the apparent motion of the

stars behind the Sun -



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A







This video is a simulation using Newtonian calculations of events which you

could not have seen from Ireland's latitude.

The time lapse graphics are provisional and help observers acquaint themselves with the apparent motion of the stars along the plane of the ecliptic over the period of a month. The birds-eye view of this apparent motion shown in the previous post is easy enough to translate into the orbital motion of the planet -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

The shift is away from the apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations used by the original heliocentric astronomers to a view which is absolutely crucial for anyone who wishes to consider the solar system's galactic orbital motion and the very slow changing relationship between galaxies we see and galaxies lost along the galactic plane just as individual stars of our galaxy is lost behind the central Sun on a smaller scale.





It shows the illogicality of your views by drawing attention to the fact

that such simulations are accurate (although this one is a bit crude).

If at walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.


No offence to your intellectual eccentricity Collins and the jargon junkies locked in their rotating celestial sphere ,this perspective is highly intricate and subtle yet easily recognizable with these graphics. The reason nobody is paying attention to the real intellectual challenges and especially where the views diverge from the apparent motion of the Sun through the zodiacal signs as opposed to the apparent motion of the visible stars behind the central Sun is that views are dominated by an exploding 'big bang' nonsense which does not take into account the normal,if slow,motion of the solar system through the galaxy and how the external galaxies would appear from that perspective.





Newton was right and you are wrong.



And yet you use a Newtonian simulation to try to prove your case that

Newton was wrong!

This is all expansive Collins,if observers want to join me with 21st century imaging and graphics then that is the only matter worth caring about and they truly should invest time in these perspectives which can only emerge with time.

Don't worry Collins,this type of astronomy is not for everyone even though it offers challenges such as weighing up the difference in perspectives which divide what is productive from what is not. I actually quite like the RA/Dec scaffolding which allows for predicting astronomical events within the calendar framework however for those ready for a more enjoyable challenge they can dwell on the time lapse footage of the apparent motion of the stars and transfer it to the orbital motion of the Earth.