Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?

Alec Brady wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006 09:26:58 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

To Gareth

You are defending the untenable Newtonian position insofar as the
reasoning behind Copernican heliocentricity as Galileo and Kepler
understood it has nothing in common with that careless and highly
flawed view of Newton.The working principles for heliocentricity are
based on observations made from an obitally moving Earth hence the
Copernican solution for observed planetary motions -


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

It is that easy !,the faster Earth in an inner orbital circuit
overtaking the slower moving outer planets generates that effect hence
the intutive persons infers the Earth moves around the Sun without
having to jump to the Sun in order to resolve the observed motion of
the planets.

If you wish to see the pathetic Newtonian attempt to use planetary
phases*as a means to justify heliocentricity then most certainly you
have no intutive feel for the original Copernican insight and how it
emerged as a dramatic correction to the conclusions of Ptolemaic
astronomy.There is no disagreement,there is only bad Newtonian
misjudgement that happened to wreck the working principles for axial
and orbital motion and cuts off the ability to appreceate Copernican
heliocentricity.It is also the thin end of the empirical wedge which
sets the scence for the silly and artificial science/religion debacle.




" PHÆNOMENON III.
That the five primary planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn, with their several orbits, encompass the sun.

That Mercury and Venus revolve about the sun, is evident from their
moon-like appearances. When they shine out with a full face, they are,
in respect of us, beyond or above the sun; when they appear half full,
they are about the same height on one side or other of the sun; when
horned, they are below or between us and the sun; and they are
sometimes, when directly under, like spots traversing the sun's disk.
That Mars surrounds the sun, is as plain from its full face when near
its conjunction with the sun, and from the gibbous figure which it
shews in its quadratures. And the same thing is demonstrable of Jupiter
and Saturn, from their appearing full in all situations; for the
shadows of their satellites that appear sometimes upon their disks make
it plain that the light they shine with is not their own, but borrowed
from the sun." NEWTON

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

Gerald, what the hell are you on about? Please explain simply, as I'm
finding this all extraordinaliy confusing.

--
Alec Brady
"You have to regard everything I say with suspicion - I may be trying to
bullshit you, or I may just be bullshitting you inadvertently."
- J. Wainwright Mathematics 140b

I received your offensive e-mail and care to reply on an open forum.

One great Englishman was John Harrison who first created accurate
clocks for the purpose of finding longitude based on the rotation of
the Earth at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

Because of the prevailing Newtonian view and the calendrically driven
clockwork Ra/Dec system ,scientists try to justify and alternative
value for axial rotation in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec by fixing axial
rotation directly to the background stars.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Most people intutively know the Earth rotates once on its axis in 24
hours precisely while not knowing how the principles came to be and
they will be become uncomfortable with other explanations,no matter who
presents them such as found in that website referenced .

I could tell you that astronomically that things are really desperate
when nobody acknowledges the means by which Copernicus derived
heliocentricity is at odds with the corrupt Newtonian view or that the
same guys try to astronomically justify the rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees to the background stars but nothing can be more
intellectually or intutively dismal.

The good news is that buried underneath the misconduct and the
misjudgements,the genuine astronomical principles exist.I accept that I
have been unsuccessful here and without prejudice I accept that I have
explained the material poorly.There is always the option to actually
read what Copernicus wrote and try to discern from the time lapse
footage how heliocentricity emerged otherwise humanity will endure the
incredible vandalism wrought on its astronomical heritage.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?
    ... reasoning behind Copernican heliocentricity as Galileo and Kepler ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets generates that effect hence ... the intutive persons infers the Earth moves around the Sun without ... If you wish to see the pathetic Newtonian attempt to use planetary ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?
    ... reasoning behind Copernican heliocentricity as Galileo and Kepler ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets generates that effect hence ... the intutive persons infers the Earth moves around the Sun without ... If you wish to see the pathetic Newtonian attempt to use planetary ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Bins steaming up
    ... reasoned heliocentricity via retrogrades is easy to understand ... The Copernican experience is such that no person would ever consider ... the Sun around Earth to be a valid proposition again,if you do you are ... are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... Absolute and relative space,at least in Newtonian terms,represent his ... planetary orbital motion is Not seen directly from Earth when it is. ... Again,the creation of the AU through celestial sphere geometry by ... motions such as planetary motion around the Sun and simultaneously ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravity Question
    ... "I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense, ... If the Sun vanished in an instant would all the orbiting objects ... nearest one to the Sun. Newtonian gravity or special relativity? ... Newtonian mechanics and special relativity do not mix well. ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)