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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




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 socalled '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 noman'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://encryptedtbn0.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. 
Ads 
#2




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://encryptedtbn0.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 pseudoastronomical 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  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Inertial Frames of Reference  Mickman  Amateur Astronomy  5  December 23rd 08 05:15 AM 
Fallacious Notion of Inertial Reference Frames in Relativity  GSS  Astronomy Misc  10  January 25th 08 04:22 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 11:09 AM 
Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR  Lester Zick  Astronomy Misc  2  December 25th 06 06:50 PM 