The quandary of Copernicus

The original heliocentric system emerged within an antecedent geocentric system where predictive astronomy was well established, such things as lunar eclipses and the position and motions of the various planets. The geocentric system relied on a specific framework where all observed motions moved against the structured background field of stars and especially those on the ecliptic plane which included the annual motion of the Sun. The solar system was arranged by the proportional movement of each object against the stellar background with the Sun's 365 day motion fitting in between Mars and Venus - this was known as the periodic times argument -

" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Kepler

Bringing it all up to date for the 21st century, even with no other indigenous astronomer in this forum, the quandary Copernicus faced was inserting the resolution for observed retrogrades where the planets fall temporarily behind in view due to the faster orbital motion of the Earth using a system that is ill-suited to frame the proper explanation.

Even though there is a refusal in this forum to accept what retrogrades represent within the original Copernican scheme, I assume most people with common sense already know how the moving Earth and the slower relative speeds of the outer planets generated the observation -

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

The effort of Copernicus to make his scheme fit with the antecedent geocentric system was not only a profligate waste of a great mind and resource but it created a vacuum into which the homocentric celestial sphere observers filled.

What is normally totally explicable in partitioning retrogrades by perspectives between the inner and outer planets seen from a moving Earth becomes inexplicable when the dominant contemporary agendas lack any relationship between the geocentric and heliocentric systems present at the time of Copernicus and for a century afterwards.

A thorough investigation should have happened long ago without having to worry about who is offended in the same way Copernicus sought to mollify his contemporaries even though no such attempt should have been made as it was technically impossible. The attempt to explain the retrograde motion of Venus and the outer planets using a common solution fails -

"What appears in the planets as [the alternation of] retrograde and direct motion is due, not to their motion, but to the earth's. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices [to explain] so many apparent irregularities in the heaven." Copernicus ,1514

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archiv...=transkrypcja&

In the right hands there is so much to do as opposed to blank stares and doing nothing.

A huge difficulty which would have freed up the separate resolution of retrogrades for the inner planets in an era without telescopes (hence no phases of Venus) was due to the awkward perspective which Copernicus and his contemporaries used

"The second is the yearly motion of the center, which traces the ecliptic around the sun. Its direction is likewise from west to east, that is, in the order of the zodiacal signs. It travels between Venus and Mars, as I mentioned (I, 10), together with its associates. Because of it, the sun seems to move through the zodiac in a similar motion. Thus, for example, when the earth's center is passing through the Goat, the sun appears to be traversing the Crab; with the earth in the Water Bearer, the sun seems to be in the Lion, and so on, as I remarked." De Revolutionibus, Copernicus

Rather than have the Earth and the Sun circling each other at opposite ends of the constellations, the crucial shift in perspective is to have the stars appear to move along the ecliptic plane and behind the central Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth. The shift from the 'fixed stars' to the central Sun is absolutely crucial in making sense of the motion of the inner planets and the formation of the founding principle of timekeeping which relies on the first appearance of Sirius far enough of the Sun's glare to be seen -

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


Briefly, unless contemporary observers take into account the Earth's orbital input using the annual motion of the stars parallel to the ecliptic plane and behind the Sun, events will turn from bad to much worse.

The toughest topic which all astronomers, including Copernicus, had to deal with is the precession of the Equinoxes -

" I said, however, that the annual revolutions of the center and of inclination are nearly equal. For if they were exactly equal, the equinoctial and solstitial points as well as the entire obliquity of the ecliptic would have to show no shift at all with reference to the sphere of the fixed stars. But since there is a slight variation, it was discovered only as it grew larger with the passage of time. From Ptolemy to us the precession of the equinoxes amounts to almost 21° " Copernicus , chapter 11

The issue of precession is bound up with annual timekeeping and the loss in orbital distance when using daily rotations as a gauge insofar as it is not either 365 1/4 rotations per single circuit not the 1461 rotations for 4 circuits whereby rotations are formatted into the familiar calendar framework.

What is the precession of the Equinoxes is really an extension of the leap day/rotation correction as the original reference for timekeeping used the annual motion of the star Sirius and the fact that it skips an appearance by one day/rotation after 4 cycles of 365 days/rotations.

The key to all of this is assigning the proper dynamics behind seasonal variations using the two simultaneous daylight/darkness cycles and the two surface rotations behind those experiences. It is an absolute 100% certainty that what is now described as axial precession is separate to the variations which Copernicus and Ptolemy witnessed insofar as when referenced to the central Sun, the North/South poles appear to rotate across the fully illuminated face of the Earth and parallel with the orbital plane. This was originally proposed by Copernicus in his earlier Commentariolous -

"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. The period of this motion is not quite a year and is nearly equal to the annual revolution on the great circle." Copernicus, Commentariolous

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


So, the fact that the planet's orbital period is not exactly 1461 days or 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits results in a loss of orbital position which in turns shows up as the precession of the equinoxes and is therefore an orbital feature and not an axial rotation feature. It all goes back to the original reference for the the Earth's orbital position in space using Sirius and the number of rotations as a gauge -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

In short, account for why Sirius skips an appearance by one day using the proportion of rotations to orbital cycles and much of the rest starts to fall into place including why the precession of the Equinoxes merge with a leap day correction except over longer periods. Axial precession as it was known is dead as a concept.

The twin monuments of Newgrange and Stonehenge certainly help contemporary observers understand that the precession of the Equinoxes has nothing whatsoever to do with a long term change in axial orientation. The ancient monuments still retain their alignments to their Solstice and Equinox points although the older Newgrange is 5200 years old -

http://www.newgrange.com/winter_solstice.htm

The flawed notion of axial precession over a 26,000 year period disrupts the annual observed motion of the North/South poles is a circle as a consequence of the entire rotation of the planet as a consequence of its orbital motion through space -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


The precession of the Equinoxes has the same cause as the leap day correction in that the annual motion of the stars, devoid of any stellar circumpolar perspective, do not correlate exactly to 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits and the loss of orbital position corresponds to the observed precession.

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:25:26 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
The twin monuments of Newgrange and Stonehenge certainly help contemporary observers understand that the precession of the Equinoxes has nothing whatsoever to do with a long term change in axial orientation. The ancient monuments still retain their alignments to their Solstice and Equinox points although the older Newgrange is 5200 years old -

http://www.newgrange.com/winter_solstice.htm

The flawed notion of axial precession over a 26,000 year period disrupts the annual observed motion of the North/South poles is a circle as a consequence of the entire rotation of the planet as a consequence of its orbital motion through space -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


The precession of the Equinoxes has the same cause as the leap day correction in that the annual motion of the stars, devoid of any stellar circumpolar perspective, do not correlate exactly to 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits and the loss of orbital position corresponds to the observed precession.

You had better read this before stating that axial precession is flawed...

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancie...vanced-lunar-0

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 11:21:35 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:25:26 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
The twin monuments of Newgrange and Stonehenge certainly help contemporary observers understand that the precession of the Equinoxes has nothing whatsoever to do with a long term change in axial orientation. The ancient monuments still retain their alignments to their Solstice and Equinox points although the older Newgrange is 5200 years old -

http://www.newgrange.com/winter_solstice.htm

The flawed notion of axial precession over a 26,000 year period disrupts the annual observed motion of the North/South poles is a circle as a consequence of the entire rotation of the planet as a consequence of its orbital motion through space -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


The precession of the Equinoxes has the same cause as the leap day correction in that the annual motion of the stars, devoid of any stellar circumpolar perspective, do not correlate exactly to 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits and the loss of orbital position corresponds to the observed precession.

You had better read this before stating that axial precession is flawed....

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancie...vanced-lunar-0

This a working astronomical thread using the perspectives of the original astronomers so it is hardly going to appeal to your community which can't even manage to merge the appearance of the Sun each 24 hour day followed by the appearance of the stars as a result of a single rotation of the planet. You came here so many times trying to convince yourself that rotation to the Sun and rotation to the stars were two different things and now want to make a nuisance of yourself with the complicated issue of the precession of the Equinoxes.

This is for people who can appreciate the observation that the North/South poles will move across the fully illuminated face of the Earth from Equinox to Equinox while trace out a line coincident with the orbital plane as it does so.

Right now the circle radiating from the Northern polar latitude is getting larger and with it the creation of Arctic sea ice, the dynamics behind this is being obscured by the false or flawed notion of the precession of the Equinoxes as a change in axial orientation to the stars when thee focus should be on the rotation of the poles to the central Sun as a means to appreciate the separate surface rotation of the Earth aside from daily rotation to the Sun. At the December Solstice, the circle will have reached it maximum diameter and this is known as the Arctic circle hence a more dynamic look at the polar latitudes and such things as sea ice evolution.

I have no answer for why an observed motion is ignored to maintain a flawed perspective and even though the precession of the Equinoxes can be accounted for in a finer manner as an extension of the leap day correction in terms of the annual motion of the stars behind the Sun (minus circumpolar motion) in proportion to full rotations, this requires a type of astronomer who can work with the external references for the inviolate proportion which surfaces as a leap day/rotation.

oriel36 wrote:

I have no answer for why an observed motion is ignored to maintain a flawed perspective.

But this is your modus operandi. You totally ignore the easily observed
constant rotation demonstrated by the sidereal day.

If normal circumstances prevailed there would be no difficulty pushing through the daily and orbital elements which comprise the terrestrial effects such as the seasons and sea ice evolution or external references used for modifying perspectives to more productive ends.

The relevance of the alignment of the ancient monuments to their Solstice and Equinox points after many thousands of years should draw observers to revisiting the Precession of the Equinoxes and the actual cause behind that observation.

The annual position of the stars in respect to the central Sun is exactly the same as it was 5200 years ago when the Solstice alignments were created by the Newgrange builders and likewise when the Stonehenge builders thought out their own alignments on Salisbury plain. It stands to reason that the alignments still hold their Solstice points as the North/South poles are equidistant from the circle of illumination at the Solstice so nothing has changed over thousands of years.

Without the appreciation as to why the additional day/rotation is added after four cycles of 365 days/rotations it will not be possible to explain the relationship between dynamics and terrestrial effects nor why the Precession of the Equinoxes is an extension of the leap day correction as a finer detail.

It is such a long wait to encounter confident people who recognize that in a single motion, the appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance of the stars within each 24 hour cycle is the most basic principle in all astronomy and how this is extended out into the orbital elements.

oriel36 wrote:
If normal circumstances prevailed there would be no difficulty pushing
through the daily and orbital elements which comprise the terrestrial
effects such as the seasons and sea ice evolution or external references
used for modifying perspectives to more productive ends.

It's not a normal circumstance for naive, crank, unscientific beliefs to
take precedence in science over tried and tested theories which actually
have evidence to support them.




The relevance of the alignment of the ancient monuments to their Solstice
and Equinox points after many thousands of years should draw observers to
revisiting the Precession of the Equinoxes and the actual cause behind that observation.

You have already seen evidence that precession has affected the view of
Cygnus from Newgrange.
The annual position of the stars in respect to the central Sun is exactly
the same as it was 5200 years ago when the Solstice alignments were
created by the Newgrange builders and likewise when the Stonehenge
builders thought out their own alignments on Salisbury plain. It stands
to reason that the alignments still hold their Solstice points as the
North/South poles are equidistant from the circle of illumination at the
Solstice so nothing has changed over thousands of years.

The position of the stars with respect to the sun is different due to
precession. The Gregorian fiddle to the calendar has kept the position of
the sun close but has not affected the precession of the stars.

Without the appreciation as to why the additional day/rotation is added
after four cycles of 365 days/rotations it will not be possible to
explain the relationship between dynamics and terrestrial effects nor why
the Precession of the Equinoxes is an extension of the leap day
correction as a finer detail.

Are you still using the Julian calendar?

It is such a long wait to encounter confident people who recognize that
in a single motion, the appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance
of the stars within each 24 hour cycle is the most basic principle in all
astronomy and how this is extended out into the orbital elements.

Because you found this so difficult to understand it's impossible for you
to realise that it's so obvious to the rest of us?

You can overcome your disability if you really concentrate.

The planetary feature that is absent from the time lapse footage due to the enormous distance is the planet's circle of illumination -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

About 20 seconds in the planet's 4 year motion is condensed into a 10 second time frame where the dual surface rotations, one daily and one annual are observed. The flawed notion of axial precessionn applied to the Earth is preventing this magnificent planetary feature from making it into wider circulation and even allowing for the usual hatred of contemporary imaging and the narratives this type of imaging creates, I still have no answer as to why it is ignored and for so long.

The creation of Arctic sea ice as the area originating from the North pole expands daily up until the December Solstice until a maximum circumference of the Arctic circle is perhaps the easiest way to appreciate the modification which introduces a separate rotation to account for the polar day/night cycle and the seasons at lower latitudes where that rotation mixes with daily rotation.