If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 Frames of reference (mathematical)
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Frames of reference (mathematical)

#1
September 7th 18, 07:43 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Gerald Kelleher external usenet poster Posts: 1,528
Frames of reference (mathematical)

There is no great mystery behind the lingo called frame of reference as it originally applied to astronomy insofar as there is really no choice in astronomy when it comes to perspectives, especially how planets and moons move relative to a moving Earth including the difference between our own moon and moons of other planets.

Yesterday I posted a link to Hamilton's notion of space and time as this is where mathematicians began to enter the weird world that eventually became relativity but the 20th century people did so by reworking Newton's so-called 'definitions' at variance with what he was actually doing with space,time(keeping) and planetary motions.

Newton invented apparent/true motion based on a notion that in the Earth frame of reference the observer sees the planets move direct/retrograde but in the frame of reference of the Sun the motions appear direct only -

"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

That statement is astronomical and intellectual no-man's land even though it became the point of departure where mathematicians entered astronomy and ultimately the fantasy of spacetime.

Contemporaries don't need the fictitious apparent/true motions, they assign proof of a moving Earth and other planets around the Sun by dividing perspectives to faster/slower motion or whether the circumference is greater than the Earth's or smaller as in the case of Venus and Mercury.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...xEhUCr9rw4P7wE

A astronomer should rightly be able to see the astronomical view and also how mathematicians make themselves look ridiculous or careless with the celestial arena while mathematicians generally do not have a feel for astronomy outside magnification. From experience, they have no interest in the roots of empirical involvement in astronomy other than a vague notion that experimental sciences and astronomy can be directly scaled up instead of using experimental sciences as analogies with limitations attached.

#2
September 9th 18, 10:35 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Gerald Kelleher external usenet poster Posts: 1,528
Frames of reference (mathematical)

Even though it is a tiny image, it carries a perspective which excludes the celestial sphere observers and theorists who assumed the celestial sphere is fixed and all observations are referenced off that observation.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...xEhUCr9rw4P7wE

I suppose I shouldn't say it is alarming considering all other damage that was done to force observations into RA/Dec in terms of cause and effect but ground zero for theorists is the creation of apparent/true motions which let the frames of reference genie out of the bottle and specifically the nasty piece of work following on from the hatchet job done on direct/retrograde observations -

"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.... 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

Whether it is indifference or incompetence on the part of the pseudo-astronomical approach of astrophysics, what matters is that the jewel at the centre of the empirical universe is a fake that is exceptionally unhealthy for the human mind.

I wouldn't want to discuss these matters with people who can be bullied here so these comments will have to stand on their own in the hope that common sense will eventually prevail after centuries of theoretical domination of astronomy.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Inertial Frames of Reference Mickman Amateur Astronomy 5 December 23rd 08 04:15 AM Fallacious Notion of Inertial Reference Frames in Relativity GSS Astronomy Misc 10 January 25th 08 03:22 PM Reference frames for axial rotation constancy oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 0 September 6th 07 01:16 PM Interstitial Bodies & Reference Frames in SR Lester Zick Astronomy Misc 179 January 17th 07 10:09 AM Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR Lester Zick Astronomy Misc 2 December 25th 06 05:50 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 AM.