How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

The baiting by the mediocre middle has been something that has been on the rise in this forum within the last few years but the appeals for diatribe have become more desperate and it is just a passing phase even if it does save the empiricists from expressing or explaining their own convictions.

The proposals for the motions of the Earth and the multiple attendant features which accompany that perspective make so much sense to genuine astronomers and especially the appearance of a separate perspective for inner planetary orbits, something unknown to Huygens and all the way back to Copernicus. They relied strictly on a set of principles inherited from the geocentric astronomers which registered all celestial motions through the background field of stars. Immediately this brings the 'planet' definition front and center insofar as the term planet requires a distinction from the behavior of the Sun and moon hence they are classified by their motions comparable to other motions and not in isolation as contemporaries try to do and mangle so badly.

Even the great Galileo didn't make the distinction although he correctly identified the relative motions between the Earth and the outer planets which causes them to fall behind in view -

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . ." 1632, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

The full package is found in the Sky & Tel graphic where the Earth's orbital input causes the stars to move behind the central Sun in sequence thereby allowing a grandstand motion of the inner planets as they move out from behind the Sun before swinging back in -

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

There is nothing inherently difficult about the perspective as most astrophotographers already put Venus and its phases into this expanded perspective -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

The riff-raff attaching themselves to this thread neither attach themselves to these observations nor have the spirit to enjoy them hence are neither scientific or religious.

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 7:37:32 AM UTC-6, wrote:

The victims and families of victims have the "power" to report such crimes to
the police. They must, however, have the guts to go through with it.

The police, however, have to see the victims as credible, and decide to proceed
with an investigation.

Attitudes have changed recently, and sexual assaults are now being investigated
with considerably more seriousness than was the case in the 1920s and 1930s. In
Canada, there have been numerous news stories about orphanages in Newfoundland
and Montreal, about the "residential schools" for Native children, and so on
and so forth that show what the situation was in those days.

Now, there is still a counter-argument. Is it that the Catholic Church was
abusive of children - or is it just that they happened to fill the breach by
providing needed social services through charity instead of the government, and
government-run orphanages and so on would have had just as much abuse of
children - and just as much in the way of the perpetrators, having power and
position, being able to cover things up because their victims were relatively
powerless?

I think that this objection *does* carry a great deal of weight, and is largely
true.

John Savard

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion.

Even agreeing that religion is as bad as you say it is, plenty of people of good
moral character are its dupes.

Thus, once again you make the mistake of overstating your case.

John Savard

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion.

Even agreeing that religion is as bad as you say it is, plenty of people of good
moral character are its dupes.

At best, the dupes are morally neutral. Religion poisons everyone, and
everything.

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:37:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You are quite anti-religious, peterson, and you are letting your bias and bigotry get the better of you. (Not that there's much good about you to begin with.)

Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion.

One of the main requirements for immigration to the US is that the applicant be of good moral character. I have not seen any restrictions on the religions of said immigrants and in fact most immigrants follow a religion. Therefore, your statement is false, as are so many of your other statements.

But there is no bias in my discussion of the moral failures of the
Catholic Church.

Yes there is, otherwise you would not have so blatantly and falsely singled out the Roman Catholic Church for criticism WRT "pedophilia."

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

One of the main requirements for immigration to the US is that the applicant be of good moral character. I have not seen any restrictions on the religions of said immigrants and in fact most immigrants follow a religion. Therefore, your statement is false, as are so many of your other statements.

No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge. One day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.
We're not there yet, but as society evolves, that day may come. Not
necessarily as a moral failure, but as an intellectual one.

The topic under discussion was the method used by astronomers when astronomy was so much more than an identification hobby using a magnifying device. While flooding a thread like this with extraneous opinions may spur on those who live out the same middle class existence (while trying desperately to sound different from each other) in an effort to turn the forum into an opinionated cistern instead of a fountain of productivity and creativity. Even in the political realm, there was a differentiation in how expansive a mind was for an expansive person can discuss ideas,events and people in a positive and negative way while the small mind sees diatribe between people -

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

The great ideas of astronomy are purely neutral of opinion, they rely on observations and in this case the framework which Huygens, Kepler, Copernicus and the original heliocentric astronomers worked off is no longer the foundation for making sense of the solar system and our planet's position and motion within the solar system.

I urge those who can appreciate the impact of the graphic to account for the Earth's orbital motion by shifting perspective to the annual motion of the stars in setting the Sun up as a central reference thereby allowing the inner planets to pursue their normal course around the Sun.

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

The minor orbital input of the Earth in that graphic is the delay in when Venus and Mercury reach their maximum elongation rather than previously stated that there would be both an acceleration and delay depending on which side of the Sun the inner planet was viewed.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:03:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

One of the main requirements for immigration to the US is that the applicant be of good moral character. I have not seen any restrictions on the religions of said immigrants and in fact most immigrants follow a religion. Therefore, your statement is false, as are so many of your other statements.

No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge.

Incorrect. For immigration purposes, a background check on major crimes committed by the applicant in his/her native country gives a rather good idea of his/her moral character.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HT...e12-PartF.html

One day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.
We're not there yet, but as society evolves, that day may come. Not
necessarily as a moral failure, but as an intellectual one.

peterson, you are an idiot. You just tried to walk your argument around in plain view! That is, you just admitted that YOU see belief in a religion as an "intellectual" failure, not the moral one which you incorrectly implied it to be just a short time ago: "Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion."

You should really be more careful, idiot peterson!

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion.

Even agreeing that religion is as bad as you say it is, plenty of people of good
moral character are its dupes.

Thus, once again you make the mistake of overstating your case.

Let's look at some "variations" of peterson's latest unsupported statement:

1) "... all people of good moral character are opposed to religion."
2) "... all people opposed to religion are of good moral character."
3) "... all people of poor moral character are in favor of religion."
4) "... all people in favor of religion are of poor moral character."

peterson stated the first, #1, and hoped that we would take his stated opposition to religion as proof of good moral character, but most weren't fooled.

He wanted to state #2, but that fails, since there are obviously many people opposed to religion who are of decidedly poor moral character.

He wanted to make statements #3 and #4, however #3 is obviously wrong, and #4 is clearly only his opinion and demonstrates his tautological mode of thinking.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:24:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:03:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

One of the main requirements for immigration to the US is that the applicant be of good moral character. I have not seen any restrictions on the religions of said immigrants and in fact most immigrants follow a religion. Therefore, your statement is false, as are so many of your other statements.

No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge.

Incorrect. For immigration purposes, a background check on major crimes committed by the applicant in his/her native country gives a rather good idea of his/her moral character.

No, it doesn't. It provides a good idea of his legal history. A lack
of criminal record is little indicator of moral character.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HT...e12-PartF.html

One day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.
We're not there yet, but as society evolves, that day may come. Not
necessarily as a moral failure, but as an intellectual one.

peterson, you are an idiot. You just tried to walk your argument around in plain view! That is, you just admitted that YOU see belief in a religion as an "intellectual" failure, not the moral one which you incorrectly implied it to be just a short time ago: "Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion."

It is both. Religion is naturally an intellectual failure, because
theism and religion represent irrational thinking. Religion advocates
immoral behavior, and by attempting to define moral absolutes makes it
easy for people to behave immorally.