Re: Kepler's celestial mechanics

oriel36 wrote: 
anon k wrote:

oriel36 wrote:


Now Anon K, I am fortunate that I do not need to resort to politics and
can simply present the reasoning of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo
against the corrupt Newtonian resolution for retrogrades,it just
happens to be one of those things that in order to justify the
Newtonian conception for retrogrades you have to find Copernicus,Kepler
and Galileo wrong in theirs.


Oriel, I am not asking you about Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, but
about your intentions when presenting passages written by them.

I think that you are saying the following:

1. One explanation of retrograde motion is to think in terms of an
earthbound observer, who recognizes that his own motion is overtaking
that of the superior planet.  You attribute this to Copernicus.

2. A successor explanation is to shift to the sun's reference-frame,
where the retrogradation is not visible, because all planets are seen to
revolve in the same direction, nearer ones faster than more distant
ones.  You attribute this to Newton.

3. You prefer the first because it is directly connected with
observational astronomy, whereas the second is an abstract astronomy
concerned only with what (imaginary) inhabitants of the sun would perceive.

Is this a correct summary of your position? 



 The positions of Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo are accurately reflected in
your first summary.

I have not asked you about the positions of Copernicus, Kepler or Galileo, but only about your own position.

In order to justify the corrupt Newtonian resolution for retrogrades
which infers heliocentricity a person has to destroy the exquisite
Copernican/Keplerian reasoning.Do you understand this ?.

If I understand you correctly, you presuppose that one cannot understand these ideas historically, but only factually.

Let me ask you this,If you were to explain  to teenagers how Copernicus
figured out that the Earth orbits the Sun by going outside and pointing
to Mars (which is presently in retrograde and subsequently the Earth is
overtaking the orbit of Mars in their respective circuits) ,let me see
you use Newton's reasoning.

Now you have me confused again. What particular point do you envision in reading Newton in order to understand Copernicus? Is there some commentary on Copernicus by Newton that you would have us consider using when we teach such material?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In Memory of Starlord
    ... Galileo and see them dragged through the astrological mud,how much ... I have compassion for you, because you suffer in seeing this ... geocentric - from laws of mechanism that worked around us on Earth, ... You have established as a 'fact' that Newton is right,in fact,you ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... explanation that Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo knew,that we see ... Copernicus; as I have often noted, ... viewpoint that Newton only affirmed Copernicus and Kepler - adding ... book about astronomy that I read, which led me to an interest in these ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... can't see where you get anything from Copernicus, Kepler, or Galileo ... that makes Flamsteed and Newton wrong. ... did not realise that you are also defending absolute/relative space ... the true motion of particular bodies from ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... can't see where you get anything from Copernicus, Kepler, or Galileo ... that makes Flamsteed and Newton wrong. ... Since it is being done simply to aid understanding, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton
    ... >> Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton ... > And what is to be said of the fact that in 1998 CODATA ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading