Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
"oriel36" wrote:

"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

You still refuse to tell me what you think "direct" means here.
I think you have completely misunderstood what Newton meant.


There is only one way to derive heliocentricity and that is to
recognise that the forward orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
slower moving outer planets infers that the Earth orbits the Sun along
with the other planets -

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

It means that the time lapse footage of the orbital motions of Jupiter
and Saturn are seen directly from Earth,they are just travelling slower
in their forward motion.That is how you discern heliocentricityand that
is how Copernicus ,Kepler and Galileo explain it.







I can present the observed motions,I can present the original reasoning
using the words of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo and I can present
where Newton words stands in sharp contrast to the original
reasoning,what I cannot and will not do is force people into affirming
that an error occured,they have to do it for themselves and I assure
you it is important.

I am not asking you to force me into anything. I am asking you
to tell me, clearly an explicitly, what you consider the error
to have been and what would have constituted going right instead
of wrong.


I am promoting Copernican heliocentricity and you are defending
Newtonian quasi-geocentricity.I can only go so far in presenting the
original explanations provided by the great astronomers and pray to God
that genuine Christians enjoy and appreceate their astronomical
heritage enough to actually focus on the time lapse footage of the
motion of the outer planets to see how they figured it out.

It is not a matter whether you can defend Newton ,it is a matter if I
can find a single Christian intutive enough to recognise how the
stature and dignity of the great Western astronomical tradition remains
in ruins.









It is plain that you are not interested in doing that. Fine;
but if you can't be bothered to explain what you mean then
I can't be bothered to try to guess. Nothing you've said gives
me any reason to think you're likely to be right anyway.


If you cannot tell the difference between the original heliocentric
reasoning and the later Newtonian misjudgement and misconduct through
the original writings then it is fine,my business is to find people who
can.If you wish to return to lecturing those with creationist
tendencies or defending the untenable Newtonian notions of planetary
motions rather than coming to enjoy Copernican heliocentricity and its
intricate reasoning then you have plenty of people like you.




Undermining the greatest known Western astronomical achievement of
Copernican heliocentricity and the later refinements by Kepler and Ole
Roemer is a serious matter notwithstanding that those who are hostile
to the faith of people ,Christian or otherwise,adhere to the terrible
mistake made in the late 17th century.The good news is that it is
fairly easy to recognise where the error,misjudgement or misconduct was
made even if it gets rapidly complicated after that.

The even better news is that Newton didn't do what you say
he did.


There was a time when I considered Newton's awful maneuvering to be
misjudgements however a more complete review shades off into outright
misconduct.I do not expect participants to go beyond what they are
capable of presently however the details of the misconduct emerge in
his re-introduction of the motion of the Sun as a valid working
principle -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

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

Again,the appreceation of the forward motion of the Earth against the
slower forward motion of the outer planets rids astronomy of the
'motion of the Sun' forever,at least in regard observed motions from
Earth.As is your custom,you will try to defend Newton but his views
contribute to the absence of familiarity of the Copernican reasoning.








The calendrically driven sidereal format which Newton eventually used
has one of the oddest features ever.Most people are aware that the
Earth turns once on its axis every 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour but
empiricists insist in tying the Earth's rotation directly to the
stellar background (remember I told you that Ptolemaics and Copernican
astronomers dropped the background stars) and coming up with a value of
23 hours 56 min 04 sec -

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

Most people here intutively know that figure is incorrect but do not
know why it is incorrect.I assure them it all goes back to Newton and
Flamsteed's misjudgements.

The period of rotation of the earth is how long it takes
to get back to "the same position". But of course it isn't
the same period; it's moved some way around the sun.
Whether you get 24 hours or 24h56m04s depends on whether
you take "the same" to mean "same meridian facing the sun"
or compensate for rotation around the sun. It's a matter
of convention.


The unfortunate consequence of explaining heliocentricity the wrong
way as Newton did is that everything that follows can be explained in
whatever careless manner a person chooses.The 'frame of reference'
which appears to give the observer a choice is just an expanded version
of the original framehopping error of what planetary motions look like
from Earth and what they look like from the Sun.Likewise with the axial
rotation of the Earth,there is actually no choice as it is 24 hours/360
degrees but empiricists have found a way to explain two different
values for axial rotation through 360 degrees.




Newton got greedy and tried to fit astronomy into his conclusions that
the behavior of the planets around the Sun mirrored the behavior of
objects on Earth,hence the 'universal law of gravitation' and so began
observation/experiment and the justification of the 'scientific method'
in astronomy .

And extraordinarily fruitful that viewpoint has been.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc


None of you promote the great reasoning of Copernicus on which the
later Keplerian and Roemerian refinements are based and more than
anything else,that conditions your views on matters of faith or on
natural phenomena.If this were the medical discipline a huge outcry
would follow but because astronomy relies on the intutive power of the
individual to sort and sift through its intricate nature,the once noble
discipline is brought low by exotic nonsense forced into what we
observe when we look out at the planets,Sun and the galaxies.

The sweeping majesty of Christianity has a lovely astronomical facet we
inherit but choose to vandalise by making men bigger than the
material.I have been unsuccessful in bringing to attension the awful
misjudgements and misconduct which is partly responsible for this mess
which passes itself off as a science/religion or creation/evolution
debate.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... >>I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton ... Classical mechanics or celestial motion reduced to terrestial ... > Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, ... investiagating astronomy and the underlying geometry between observed ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The great Western adaption
    ... Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun? ... about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow ... laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the ... astronomy which requires a high level of intuitive intelligence. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: A comment on this vote
    ... an error that began with John Flamsteed and expanded with Newton so ... "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the ... is no such thing as an equable motion, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Gravitational potential - A challenge to Paul Anderson (and to SR)
    ... But from the sun they are always seen ... > | distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the ... Newton did by mangling Kepler with Roemer methods and insights. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Response to Dwight
    ... stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. ... But from the sun they are ... allegiance to the empirical cult which grew up around Newton so as far ... It has no precedence in heliocentric reasoning for retrograde motion ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)