Re: Copernican heliocentricity

Hey sunshine

Planetary heliocentric motions are seen directly from the orbitally
moving Earth -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Do you not like to see the Newtonian mutation exposed by using actual
images in motion to affirm what Kepler and Galileo knew.

Try Galileo -

"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 . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

You see gentlemen indeed,the Pope was offended because Galileo put
geocentric words in the papal mouth but at least the Pope undertood the
Copernican reasoning.You are not offended by the Newtonian mutation
based on framehopping to the Sun but then again,that is what makes you
empiricists,a step below creationists.




Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article <1148322027.118356.237980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stile4aly <stile4aly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

oriel36 wrote:
<snip>
I suppose you can bet that Christians are not intelligent enough to
know the difference but they have the time lapse footage above to
affirm what is correct and what is not.What Newton did next was
outright fraud.

I'm not sure I understand your beef.

I spent some time, weeks, trying to figure out where exactly oriel
went off track on the science. The crux is that he does not understand
Galilean transformations. Most people know the concept if not the
name:

Suppose you're standing in a train and toss a ball forward. It is
going 5 m/s forward -- relative to the floor of the train. But it may
be going 50 m/s forward relative to the ground (the train going 45 m/s
forward relative to the ground) or -40 m/s (train going 45 m/s the
other way).

So your example explaining the shift in observer location is not
going to succeed.

There's a further subtlety involved (oriel's response to a recent
post of mine looks more peculiar if you don't know this). If we
run a clock and time the interval between meridian crossings of the
sun, we arrive at an average of 24 hours. It's defined that way,
the 'mean sun'. Of course the actual sun leads and lags that mythical
mean sun because of the eccentricity of the orbit (and corresponding
variation in angular speed of the sun). Given a chance, one doesn't
use such a variable chronometer.

With the advent of the pendulum clock and telescope (well, a few
iterations down on the clock) it became possible to use the stars
as chronometers. Time the period between successive passages of a
star across the meridian. That is the approximately 23:56 he mentioned.
This is constant to within a couple of milliseconds per day, for
about 1 part in 1e8 stability. Pretty good. The discrepancy between
23:56 and 24:00 is because while the earth rotates on its axis, it
also progresses in its orbit around the sun, and the extra about 4
minutes are needed to bring the sun back to the meridian.

oriel has a fundamentalist faith that there is only One True Day
and that is the 24:00 that is never observed. Somehow he's decided
that to observe the 23:56 between stellar meridian crossings means
that one is a geocentrist.

Copernicus was saying that from
an orbitally moving earth, we can see motions of the planets that
demonstrate that those planets orbit the sun. Newton was saying that
if you're standing on the sun, then you see that the planets orbit the
sun. They're saying the same thing, they're just standing at different
places when they're saying them.

Yes. You just have to understand the Galilean transform.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Center of galaxies
    ... All that Newtonian bull talk of the Earth around the Sun is the same ... primary planets, and of the ... The truth of the matter is that Keplerian motion and further into the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory
    ... the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it ... cooled, and became planets. ... than "impossible" is too benign a term for the fact that our Earth exists as ... It's a good thing our sun is in a single-star configuration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory
    ... the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it ... cooled, and became planets. ... than "impossible" is too benign a term for the fact that our Earth exists as ... It's a good thing our sun is in a single-star configuration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply
    ... > | the Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow) and you will ... > | the Sun. ... motion.You view the circumpolar motion of the stars in this light ... assumes axial rotation to be constant and equalises all the variables ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The great Western adaption
    ... appreciate the annual orbital motion of the Earth John,in fact Newton's ... take our meals by the Sun, ... or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading