Halley/Newton

I am watching a current reboot of Sagan's Cosmos and the packaged history presented to the wider population as fact although it is nothing like the actual technical nor historical details which surround planetary dynamics.

This is not a dispute about something as worthless as priority or celebrity nor mechanical innovations as the Cosmos program has it, this is what distinguishes empirical approaches to planetary dynamics from each other. The TV program has Halley meet Newton and up pops the 'laws of motion' however about 18 years before this,John Wallis was discussing motions as 'laws' as a matter of course -

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html

To really discover what distinguished Wallis's decent approach to the Newton's assault on astronomy really requires going back to the Galileo affair and even further back to Copernicus where issues arose as to the validity of planetary dynamics in tandem with the system which predicts astronomical events such as eclipses,transits or something more immediate like the Moon's phases and motions which our ancestors noted affected terrestrial events such as the tides as Wallis noted.

"When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but "not as being the truth," he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history it was not a casuistical quibble; it was the refusal (unjustified it may be) to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth." Barfield 1957

How do you attract the type of personality who is aware that the rotating celestial sphere system built around the Equatorial coordinate system is brilliant for predicting events and always has been however it cannot be used to prove the daily and annual motions of the Earth ?. Is it too difficult ?,too time consuming ? or is it just that an overreaching vicious strain of empiricism to which humanity is currently chained to is more appealing than actual astronomy where cause and effect comes under normal perceptions and rules ?.

The readers in sci.astro.amateur have a much better documentary picture of astronomy and so what if readers show their appreciation by walking away from the forum,it will be there for those who take great satisfaction in innovations and creative endeavors.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

I am watching a current reboot of Sagan's Cosmos and the packaged history
presented to the wider population as fact although it is nothing like the
actual technical nor historical details which surround planetary dynamics.

This is not a dispute about something as worthless as priority or celebrity
nor mechanical innovations as the Cosmos program has it, this is what
distinguishes empirical approaches to planetary dynamics from each other.
The TV program has Halley meet Newton and up pops the 'laws of motion'
however about 18 years before this,John Wallis was discussing motions as
'laws' as a matter of course -

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html

To really discover what distinguished Wallis's decent approach to the
Newton's assault on astronomy

=============================================
All the time you use prejudicial and biased language your indecent vicious
thuggish assaults on Newton will go unread. Shut the **** up, Kelleher,
Newton put the math in that Wallis was incapable of, as are you.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Empiricists are uninteresting because of their disinterest in Newton's attempt to organize observations to suit the clockwork solar system of RA/Dec and who could blame the guys over a century ago who tried to escape the bluffing of Newton by creating voodoo of their own using Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion.

The reboot of Cosmos sets Sir Isaac up in such a way as to justify the certificates hanging on the wall behind their desks however readers in sci.astro.amateur have now come to know that despite centuries of indoctrination and hype,there is nothing meaningful in the empirical treatment of astronomy and the attempt to scale up terrestrial ballistics to planetary dynamics. The program is therefore the usual regurgitated propaganda to maintain lifestyles and pensions at the expense of genuine astronomy but this time around it looks stale and has nothing of the optimism that characterized the emergence of the internet and 21st century technology after Sagan's time.

Having a few years to recover from spinal injuries creates the opportunity to work with genuine researchers who are not afraid to tackle technical and historical issues which are now long overdue,not like the guys a century ago who made a bad situation worse but rather using all the modern tools to at least set things up for productive and creative endeavors while teaching students and adults properly the links between the motions in the celestial arena and their existence.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

Empiricists are uninteresting
==================================
Yes, you are uninteresting and you know no mathematics, so shut the **** up,
ignorant thug.

The top down approach to planetary dynamics is more suitable in the 21st century than the attempt to make terrestrial ballistics look like the motions of the moon and planets. The solar system's galactic orbital motion has to influence the variations in speed seen in the planets as they travel half their orbits traveling in the opposite direction of the Sun in our galactic orbital motion and the other half with the Sun.

I don't normally venture into speculative causes as there is just too much to do with interpretative astronomy linking our planetary dynamics with terrestrial effects so the sight of empiricists unable to adapt to 21st century observations and away from the disruptive agenda of Newton's brand of empiricism is dismaying.

So,for all the world it looks like huge electromagnetic influences on different levels acting on planetary dynamics but as yet the strength of these influences is as yet unknown and will remain so as long as investigators are stuck in the clockwork solar system of Newton.

Anyone can be a commentator but few are innovators so there is something of a respect for the guys in the late 17th century who forged ahead with their convictions but ultimately overreached instead of continuing to use analogies appropriately.

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:08:56 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
but ultimately overreached instead of continuing to use analogies appropriately.

On what basis can you make such a claim?

The motions of the planets, their satellites, and space probes, including the subtle perturbations of Uranus that led to the discovery of Neptune, including the complexities of the Moon's orbit, so strongly influenced by the Sun in addition to the Earth, as evidenced by the motion of the Moon's nodes, are predicted to a very high degree of accuracy using Newton's inverse-square law of gravity and the ordinary laws of mechanics.

In the case of the motion of Mercury, even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is found to supply an important correction.

So how do you claim that Newton overreached, and we should go back to interpretive astronomy?

John Savard

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

The top down approach to planetary dynamics is more suitable in the 21st
century than the attempt to make terrestrial ballistics look like the
motions of the moon and planets. The solar system's galactic orbital motion
has to influence the variations in speed seen in the planets as they travel
half their orbits traveling in the opposite direction of the Sun in our
galactic orbital motion and the other half with the Sun.

I don't normally venture into speculative causes as there is just too much
to do with interpretative astronomy linking our planetary dynamics with
terrestrial effects so the sight of empiricists unable to adapt to 21st
century observations and away from the disruptive agenda of Newton's brand
of empiricism is dismaying.

So,for all the world it looks like huge electromagnetic influences on
different levels acting on planetary dynamics but as yet the strength of
these influences is as yet unknown and will remain so as long as
investigators are stuck in the clockwork solar system of Newton.

Anyone can be a commentator but few are innovators so there is something of
a respect for the guys in the late 17th century who forged ahead with their
convictions but ultimately overreached instead of continuing to use
analogies appropriately.
=================================
Carry on being dismayed.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:08:56 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
but ultimately overreached instead of continuing to use analogies
appropriately.

On what basis can you make such a claim?

The motions of the planets, their satellites, and space probes, including
the subtle perturbations of Uranus that led to the discovery of Neptune,
including the complexities of the Moon's orbit, so strongly influenced by
the Sun in addition to the Earth, as evidenced by the motion of the Moon's
nodes, are predicted to a very high degree of accuracy using Newton's
inverse-square law of gravity and the ordinary laws of mechanics.

In the case of the motion of Mercury, even Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity is found to supply an important correction.

================================================
On what basis can you make such a claim, you ****ing hypocrite?


Mercury:
415 orbits per century
360 degrees per orbit
60 arc minutes per degree
60 arc seconds per arc minute

arc seconds per century = 537840000
GR "correction" is 43 arc seconds per century

One part in 12,507,907

Einstein with his trusty slide rule and book of log tables was that
accurate.

You are spewing hearsay, you arsehole. You are a bull****ter of the worst
kind, you don't even know you are bull****ting.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 5:44:12 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:

Einstein with his trusty slide rule and book of log tables was that
accurate.

Before Einstein came along, the 43 second discrepancy had already been detected by astronomers, who postulated an equatorial bulge on the Sun, or an undiscovered planet which they named Vulcan, to explain that discrepancy.

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 5:44:12 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:

Einstein with his trusty slide rule and book of log tables was that
accurate.

Before Einstein came along, the 43 second discrepancy had already been
detected by astronomers, who postulated an equatorial bulge on the Sun, or
an undiscovered planet which they named Vulcan, to explain that discrepancy.

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/

John Savard
===========================================
Until you can show all the data in a computer (ideally a spreadsheet with
built in GR calculations open to examination) you are liar, Savard. There
is no "discrepancy" in Le Verrier's calculation, just a slight rounding
error of 1 part in 12 million. You've never done the calculation yourself,
neither can you name anyone else than has. Relativity is the greatest con of
the 20th century, right up there with Piltdown Man and Jesus H Christ
walking on water and turning water to wine. You are so stupid you don't even
know you've been conned, you take all the crap on trust. By itself that
doesn't matter, but then ****ers likes you spread the rumours and that is
downright dishonest bull****. BTW, an equatorial bulge or an undiscovered
planet would at least be a physical cause, not a magical one. The fact is
the precession varies constantly as the other planets changed position,
dragging Mercury along gravitationally, so this "century" figure of Earth's
movement cannot included Neptune with its period of 165 years. There is
your so- called "discrepancy".

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway