Orbital comparisons and the astronomical term 'periodic times'

Kepler's 10th argument for the Copernican arrangement -

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler


Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which

is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole
system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe wishes,but
in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the
centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.


Argument 10


" 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."

Johannes Kepler

The argument is fairly easy to understand and how he arrived at the
value for the annual orbit of Mars (687 days) and Venus using Earth
days is equally easy enough using orbital comparisons and the stellar
background.

On page 86 is the Keplerian jewel known as the Panis Quadragesimalis -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

It represents the plotted position of Mars against the stellar
background and the heliocentric orbital comparison between Earth and
Mars,in Kepler's own words -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre, with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609

It is straightforward then to consider that the faster Earth completes
16 orbits to the slower Mars who makes 9 in that period thereby the
length of an annual orbit of Mars can be nailed down to 687 days.

This is why it is vital to approach and resolve retrogrades correctly
from an orbitally moving Earth.

oriel36 wrote:
snip stuff I don't significantly disagree with

This is why it is vital to approach and resolve retrogrades correctly
from an orbitally moving Earth.

What you seem to misunderstand is that *aparent* retrograde motion is
only that - plotted against the stars, planets appeear to regress (move
backwards in their orbits). They don't actually do so. Once one is
not tied to the earth pont of view (and it's orbital and revolutionary
movements), one is no longer forced to resolve retrogrades, because
they *don't actually exist*.

Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

You quote all the right information, but fail to get the point.

Austin

AustinMN wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
snip stuff I don't significantly disagree with

This is why it is vital to approach and resolve retrogrades correctly
from an orbitally moving Earth.

What you seem to misunderstand is that *aparent* retrograde motion is
only that - plotted against the stars, planets appeear to regress (move
backwards in their orbits). They don't actually do so. Once one is
not tied to the earth pont of view (and it's orbital and revolutionary
movements), one is no longer forced to resolve retrogrades, because
they *don't actually exist*.


That is why the correct approach to retrogrades is to determine that
they are plotted positions against the stellar background and resolved
from an orbitally moving Earth.This gives you thr information of how
many days it takes Mars to complete an orbital circuit by using the
Earth's orbital motion to gauge it.

Retrogrades are Not,I repeat Not,resolved by putting a hypothetical
observer on the Sun -

"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

The Panis Quadresimalis on page 86 represents the plotted positions of
Mars against the stellar background AND the orbital comparison between
Earth and Mars.A careless person might think that the Earth was at the
center of ther representation and replacing it with the Sun would
cause the apparent retrogrades to straighten out hence the destructive
Newtonian mutation can be made sense of.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf



Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

You quote all the right information, but fail to get the point.

Austin

I do not care who gets my point or who does not,the failure to grasp
the severity of the information loss by approach and resolving
retrogrades in the wrong manner undermines the great Western
astronomical heritage through a terrible information loss.

On 11 Jan 2007 13:00:13 -0800, "AustinMN"
wrote:

Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

Austin-

Keep arguing with Gerald, and you'll eventually end up banging your head
against the wall in frustration. And then you'll be as insane as he is!

If you want to make an occasional point from time to time for the rest
of our sakes, go for it. But don't try to convince Gerald of anything...
it isn't possible.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

AustinMN wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
snip stuff I don't significantly disagree with

This is why it is vital to approach and resolve retrogrades correctly
from an orbitally moving Earth.

What you seem to misunderstand is that *aparent* retrograde motion is
only that - plotted against the stars, planets appeear to regress (move
backwards in their orbits). They don't actually do so. Once one is
not tied to the earth pont of view (and it's orbital and revolutionary
movements), one is no longer forced to resolve retrogrades, because
they *don't actually exist*.


That is why the correct approach to retrogrades is to determine that
they are plotted positions against the stellar background and resolved
from an orbitally moving Earth.This gives you thr information of how
many days it takes Mars to complete an orbital circuit by using the
Earth's orbital motion to gauge it.

Retrogrades are Not,I repeat Not,resolved by putting a hypothetical
observer on the Sun -


"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


The Panis Quadresimalis on page 86 represents the plotted positions of
Mars against the stellar background AND the orbital comparison between
Earth and Mars.A careless person might think that the Earth was at the
center of ther representation and replacing it with the Sun would
cause the apparent retrogrades to straighten out hence a p[erson can
make sense of the destructive Newtonian approach to plotted positions
and retrogrades..


http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf


Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

You quote all the right information, but fail to get the point.

Austin

I quite understand that almost all here never heard how Copernicus
resolved the observed behavior in planetary motion by setting the Earth
in an orbit between Venus and Mars around the central star and
resolved the daily cycle by setting the Earth spinning.In short
everything is done by an observer who uses the Earth's motions to
account for observed cyclical causes and effects,it is not done by a
person guessing what things look like from the Sun.

oriel36 wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
snip stuff I don't significantly disagree with

This is why it is vital to approach and resolve retrogrades correctly
from an orbitally moving Earth.

What you seem to misunderstand is that *aparent* retrograde motion is
only that - plotted against the stars, planets appeear to regress (move
backwards in their orbits). They don't actually do so. Once one is
not tied to the earth pont of view (and it's orbital and revolutionary
movements), one is no longer forced to resolve retrogrades, because
they *don't actually exist*.


That is why the correct approach to retrogrades is to determine that
they are plotted positions against the stellar background and resolved
from an orbitally moving Earth.

No disagreement, but that point has already been made.

This gives you thr information of how
many days it takes Mars to complete an orbital circuit by using the
Earth's orbital motion to gauge it.

No disagreement, but that point has been made elsewhere.

Retrogrades are Not,I repeat Not,resolved by putting a hypothetical
observer on the Sun -

"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

And Newton is not trying to resolve them. He is simply pointing out
that they are only an illusion, and from a different point of view they
would clearly not exist (which they don't).

The Panis Quadresimalis on page 86 represents the plotted positions of
Mars against the stellar background AND the orbital comparison between
Earth and Mars.A careless person might think that the Earth was at the
center of ther representation and replacing it with the Sun would
cause the apparent retrogrades to straighten out hence the destructive
Newtonian mutation can be made sense of.

Why would someone do that? Because they are, as you say, careless?


http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf



Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

You quote all the right information, but fail to get the point.

Austin

I do not care who gets my point or who does not,the failure to grasp
the severity of the information loss by approach and resolving
retrogrades in the wrong manner undermines the great Western
astronomical heritage through a terrible information loss.

BTW, I don't know an astronomer who can not explain retrograde motion
in a much more consice and easy to understand manner than you endless
posting does. They all use the orbital movement of the earth to do so.

The information loss is zero. The aparent information loss only
existis in your mind, and as such is as much an illusion as retrograde
moton.

Austin

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 13:00:13 -0800, "AustinMN"
wrote:

Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

Austin-

Keep arguing with Gerald, and you'll eventually end up banging your head
against the wall in frustration. And then you'll be as insane as he is!

If you want to make an occasional point from time to time for the rest
of our sakes, go for it. But don't try to convince Gerald of anything...
it isn't possible.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

16 years ago I was working on topics like the geometry of natural
effeciency,a contemporary version of what Kepler worked on, and have a
copyright (and only one) on an article expressing stellar evolution in
terms of two external rings and a smaller intersecting ring.It should
surpise you because that 1990 work was 4 years before they discovered
they things-

http://www.hubblespacephotos.com/pics/sn1987a.jpg

Now,you hardly believe that I enjoy recycling the same argument for
Copernican heliocentricity to people who are intent in retaining a
celestial sphere Ra/Dec system.I am mindful that in an era where
people,at least those old enough, are astronomers by virtue of
recognising imbalances in climate ,something which is directly related
to the motions of the Earth which in turn is entirely an astronomical
pursuit.

I do not set out to convince anyone insofar as the original works are
so gorgeous and easy to understand by using imaging and graphics that
only the most dull and dour would want to retain false notions which
serve neither the careful work of the ancient timekeeping side of
astronomy ,the great Western heliocentric astronomers nor this present
generation.

I am not opposed to authority,only pseudo-authority hence the
disappearance of anything technical is this forum beyond magnification
equipment.

AustinMN wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
snip stuff I don't significantly disagree with

This is why it is vital to approach and resolve retrogrades correctly
from an orbitally moving Earth.

What you seem to misunderstand is that *aparent* retrograde motion is
only that - plotted against the stars, planets appeear to regress (move
backwards in their orbits). They don't actually do so. Once one is
not tied to the earth pont of view (and it's orbital and revolutionary
movements), one is no longer forced to resolve retrogrades, because
they *don't actually exist*.


That is why the correct approach to retrogrades is to determine that
they are plotted positions against the stellar background and resolved
from an orbitally moving Earth.

No disagreement, but that point has already been made.

This gives you thr information of how
many days it takes Mars to complete an orbital circuit by using the
Earth's orbital motion to gauge it.

No disagreement, but that point has been made elsewhere.

Retrogrades are Not,I repeat Not,resolved by putting a hypothetical
observer on the Sun -

"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

And Newton is not trying to resolve them. He is simply pointing out
that they are only an illusion, and from a different point of view they
would clearly not exist (which they don't).

The Panis Quadresimalis on page 86 represents the plotted positions of
Mars against the stellar background AND the orbital comparison between
Earth and Mars.A careless person might think that the Earth was at the
center of ther representation and replacing it with the Sun would
cause the apparent retrogrades to straighten out hence the destructive
Newtonian mutation can be made sense of.

Why would someone do that? Because they are, as you say, careless?


http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf



Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

You quote all the right information, but fail to get the point.

Austin

I do not care who gets my point or who does not,the failure to grasp
the severity of the information loss by approach and resolving
retrogrades in the wrong manner undermines the great Western
astronomical heritage through a terrible information loss.

BTW, I don't know an astronomer who can not explain retrograde motion
in a much more consice and easy to understand manner than you endless
posting does. They all use the orbital movement of the earth to do so.

The information loss is zero. The aparent information loss only
existis in your mind, and as such is as much an illusion as retrograde
moton.

Austin

The isolation of the Earth's orbital motion to resolve the apparent
behavior of the outer planets left axial rotation to explain the daily
cycle as a principle.The same people who left us the great reasoning
which uses the Earth orbital motion also overlayed the Equation of Time
system on the principle of axial rotation thereby correlating the pace
of a clock in sync with axial rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of
rotation making 24 hours through 360 degrees.

The information loss by using a hypothetical observer on the Sun to
account for retrogrades is catastrophic,no two ways about it. It took
decades to admit and undo the damage of Piltdown man,how long do you
think it will take to undo damage which is many magnitudes greater.The
advantage of these forums is that the damage can be undone and fresh
perspective built without appeal to pseudo-authority for I will remind
you as always that it is a shared astronomical heritage that is almost
destroyed.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 13:00:13 -0800, "AustinMN"
wrote:

Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

Austin-

Keep arguing with Gerald, and you'll eventually end up banging your head
against the wall in frustration. And then you'll be as insane as he is!

I've previously identified him as the flame warrior Ferous Cranus:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

"Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason,
persuasion and new ideas...Though his thrusts
are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed
in every detail...he will remount the same attack
again and again with only the slightest variation
in tactics....ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus
cannot be moved."


If you want to make an occasional point from time to time for the rest
of our sakes, go for it. But don't try to convince Gerald of anything...
it isn't possible.

I know...Brings to mind an old (and true) adage about arguing with a
fool...

Austin

You were doing so well with the first attempt at a technical reply but
like so many others,your lack of astronomical experience always
shows.Join all the rest in that stony silence,unable to post anything
worthwhile beyond a harmless exercise in magnification.

The correct way to resolve retrogrades and the correct way to correlate
axial rotation and clocks (24 hours/360 degrees) is there regardless if
you adhere to a silly celestial sphere setup or not..

Ostracism works in an enviroment where there is vibrant discussions but
not as a defensive tactic and the latter applies to this empirically
dominant forum, in other words ,something akin to a creationist
mentality applied to astronomy.


It is time for a fresh approach with more imaging ,more focus on the
motions and structure of celestial objects rather than these silly
attempts to work with the space between objects and loading them with
'dark' features.The first signs are of the return of the astronomer
after an absence of many centuries insofar as people are beginning to
pay more attention through climatological changes and their natural
instinct that something has occured globally.

You cannot present climate ,climate imbalances and hemispherical
weather patterns (seasons) with a setup based on the correlation
between a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt to the Sun.It is an
enormous endeavor to modify the astronomical approach to reflect the
actual and accurate mechanism based on the change in orbital
orientation,the orbital path of the Earth,received radiation and axial
rotation passing through variations in the orbital shadow and direct
solar radiation.




AustinMN wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 13:00:13 -0800, "AustinMN"
wrote:

Retrogrades are an *illusion* caused by an observer being on a moving
earth observing another moving planet.

Austin-

Keep arguing with Gerald, and you'll eventually end up banging your head
against the wall in frustration. And then you'll be as insane as he is!

I've previously identified him as the flame warrior Ferous Cranus:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

"Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason,
persuasion and new ideas...Though his thrusts
are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed
in every detail...he will remount the same attack
again and again with only the slightest variation
in tactics....ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus
cannot be moved."


If you want to make an occasional point from time to time for the rest
of our sakes, go for it. But don't try to convince Gerald of anything...
it isn't possible.

I know...Brings to mind an old (and true) adage about arguing with a
fool...

Austin