|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Actual motions vs apparent/true motions
The hapless empiricist is stuck with an ideology they never really understood but have the dubious capacity to believe it anyway -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions;" Newton Dear oh dear,the whole premise of absolute/relative motion and space was founded on an utterly silly idea about observed motions which tried to account for a Sun centered system by assigning a view seen from Earth as opposed to a hypothetical view from the Sun - "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 I am not complaining about those who suffered a poor education or an indoctrination but from a moving Earth we see the planets run their circuits around the Sun in two different ways depending on whether it is the inner planets or the outer planets. Kids will love it when described using the racetrack analogies - https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-T...015%2Beng..jpg https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160915.html Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so appreciation tells you all about yourselves and if you have the capacity to enjoy the motions you all participate in. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Actual motions vs apparent/true motions
If it were not for the new perspectives the idea of protest would be nothing more than standing outside a bank and decrying the avarice of bankers in creating penury through their recklessness. In similar fashion it would be useless pointing out academic indulgences that spread from astronomy to terrestrial sciences and particularly climate research however the problem is not with cases but rather it is systemic and has been that way since the emergence of empiricism. Unlike publically elected officials, bankers and academics can just wait until things blow over as anonymity runs hand in hand with mediocrity yet behind it all there is a story to tell.
In 21st century form the observed motions of the outer planets are tracked against the background stars with the familiar looping motions (without phases for obvious reasons) as the faster Earth overtakes these slower moving planets. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html Kepler had created an extended version of these orbital events as the Earth passes out Mars periodically due to our faster orbital motion - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...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 The first hint of trouble is a modern description of Kepler's rendition of Mars seen from a moving Earth as it is implied by Kepler himself. The empiricist imagine the view is geocentric or rather geostationary insofar as both amount to the same thing. It led Sir Isaac into the belief that there are apparent and true motions divided by a geocentric and heliocentric view. Not that Newton's followers have and had a ball's notion what the mathematician was trying to achieve, he assigned geocentric observations with retrogrades and heliocentric observations without them hence - 'PHÆNOMENON IV.' "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun...This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,or the earth about the sun." Newton Of course Kepler said no such thing as he is occupied with the relationship between individual orbits of two planets and not a description of individual orbits themselves . In his expanded explanation he correlation represents an equalization of orbital geometries through their periods, in this case Saturn and the Earth is the focus of his attention - "The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler "But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from the sun." Kepler In an elaborate scheme Newton imposes not only a celestial sphere framework but also runs observations of the calendar based RA/Dec which amounts to ignoring the Earth's orbital motion and even the Lat/Long system which would have prevented such a drastic appropriation of timekeeping and its misuse.. Any reader coming here for the last decade would have seen that the effort is not towards highlighting the contrived agenda of Newton although that unfortunately may seem to be the case however the principle idea is that in the search for variable orbital speed of the Earth and the other planets indicate an input from the solar system's galactic orbital motion influencing orbital components. "And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton Speculation is fine and much of the cause for orbital motion is still as speculative as when Kepler invoked rotational influences of larger objects on smaller objects (planets/moons) so it is fitting to graft in the galactic motion of the solar system and its effects on planetary speeds and so on. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Greater Motions | Painius | Misc | 65 | December 21st 06 07:55 PM |
Proper motions in Yale BSC | Axel Harvey | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 22nd 05 11:14 PM |
Motions that make life possible | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | July 2nd 05 11:53 AM |
Missing proper motions | Axel Harvey | Astronomy Misc | 7 | June 24th 05 03:56 PM |
Galactic Motions | Topquark | Astronomy Misc | 4 | April 23rd 04 02:13 AM |