Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:

[me:]
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

Just about any statement that begins "There is only one way
to derive ..." is false. I see no reason to think that yours
is an exception.


The Copernican reasoning behind the Earth's motions and the proper
arrangement and motions of the other planets around the Sun was
arrived at in a specific way and affirmed by astronomers such as
Kepler and Galileo in like manner.

"In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the forward
and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and smaller
than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in Mercury. "
Copernicus





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.

So you have said, but you haven't indicated what those terms
mean. There's nothing remotely geocentric about Newton's
theories, so far as I can see, and you've made no mention
of any difference between Copernicus's theories and Newton's,
as opposed to the routes by which they allegedly arrived at
those theories.


Promoting Copernican heliocentricity is difficult in this era where the
empirical cult and its warped view of history prevails.It is easy for
me to go through the technical forensics of what went wrong but I much
prefer to give the history surrounding the emergence of Copernican
heliocentricity more depth and especially from the point of view of
denominational Christianity.Copernicus could write to the pope on
astronomical matters and be understood because these people had
astronomical roots going back millenia.

What did you or anyone else learn at school ? ,that before Copernicus
people believed that the universe revolved round the Earth and
Copernicus came along and said the Earth moved around the Sun.

Copernicus gathered different reasoning throughout history and
presented how many different things can be resolved by assigning axial
and orbital motions to the Earth,while some of his reasons went through
a refinement process through Kepler and Roemer, some still have to be
dealt with,his outlines are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were
in 1543.

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html









As I understand it, Copernicus thought the planets moved
in circles, whereas Newton (following Kepler) took them
to move (almost) in ellipses. Is that perhaps where you
think Newton is wrong and Copernicus is right? (It doesn't
seem likely since you've made apparently-approving reference
to Kepler.)


A few weeks ago you probably thought Newton knew how to treat plotted
data such as retrogrades but when placed side by side with the original
heliocentric reasoning,his errors are proving costly.

Kepler's working principles were based on comparing orbits and
especially the orbit of Earth against the orbit of Mars by which he
recognised that planetary motions and geometry are not circular but
have an uneven motion and geometry.

This part can wait for without acknowledgement of the original
Copernican working principle of a forward moving Earth overtaking the
slower but forward moving outer planets,it hardly matters how detailed
I present the Keplerian refinement and the awful maneuvering of Newton
based on the refinement.




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.

Why should I *care* how they figured it out? The value and
correctness of a scientific theory are not dependent on how
it's arrived at. Maxwell got at his equations by means of
a bizarre mental picture involving rotating gears. Kekule
discovered the structure of benzene by dreaming about snakes.

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.

And apparently you have no interest in telling us. Perhaps
you consider it beneath your dignity to stoop to our level,
or it's some kind of a test (those with the true gnosis will
understand your point immediately and intuitively while the
rest look on in bafflement).

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.

And, I now see, you have no interest in helping me to understand
your theories so that I too can "enjoy Copernical heliocentricity";
you are merely throwing out hints for the benefit of the elect,
of whom so far there appear to be ... well, only one.


Sir

Copernicus give his reasons for witholding his work and why he almost
abandoned it,not because of elitism but because that dull and dismal
middle ground which still exists today.

"Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the
volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to follow
the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to
transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in
writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to
Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose,
because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which
would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful
thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by
those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary
pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the
nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of
others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part
among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these
considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the
novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to
abandon completely the work which I had undertaken. " Copernicus







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.

No, I will not "try to defend Newton"; he needs no defence
from me, and neither does his reputation. It's you I've been
trying to help, but clearly that's a waste of time.


The ability to go outside and appreceate the great astronomical motions
we participate in emerges from the reaoning of Copernicus.We breath the
intuitive air of the great heliocentric astronomers as a facet of
Christian existence and deplore the silly attenpt to draw us down to
the equation and the carefully constructed argument which conceals
pretensiousness and carelessness and reveals nothings.

Scoundrels like Newton could get their way because they always have the
drones behind them but it never lasts.The rise of the internet and
tools such as time lapse footage takes appreceation of celestial
structure and motion away from theorists who guess at things and
returns it to intutive and contemplative astronomy of Copernicus and
Kepler where it belongs.






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.

Yet more statements without evidence or reasoning, which
doubtless the elect will immediately understand while the
rest of us poor benighted non-intuitive fools remain,
bound as we are by the fetters of logic and mathematics,
unable to comprehend the workings of your intellect.


The calendrically driven Ra/Dec system which is used as a convenience
for optical astronomers is the same one Newton used to construct his
quasi-geocentric format for the solar system .It is quasi-geocentric
insofar as the motion of the Sun returns as a valid perspective after
Copernicus abolished such notions 150 years earlier -

"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." Newton

None of this is important right now,what is important that the more
intutive Christian,in making the effort to see how the heliocentric
system emerged will also exercise the same intutive abilities which
adore Christ and Christianity.


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.

Yeah, right, my religious views are *entirely* the consequence
of my opinions about Newton.


Your views are most certainly influenced by Newtonian empiricism
insofar as the fables and myths created to bolster the perception that
the scientific method was a natural extension of Copernicus and Kepler
against an ignorant denominational Christian view never existed.If you
care to look at the preface of Osiander,you will see the creeping
mindset of people who would eventually hijack Copernican
heliocentricity and turn it into an ugly mess -

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html



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.

It's not that you've been unsuccessful, Gerald; you haven't even
tried. You've made claims that you've refused to justify or even
explain. It is clear that you hold the rest of us in contempt
because we are not "intuitive" -- which apparently means "agreeing
with Gerald, and knowing what he means even when he doesn't say";
explaining such petty details as what you mean by the words you
use is beneath you until someone comes along who is worthy to
receive your instruction.

Fine. Carry on waiting. Don't mind me.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

How long have the sacred texts of Judaeo-Christianity been in the hands
of those who treat them as though they were political weapons or indeed
the great astronomical heritage which is almost unrecognisable beneath
every exotic and dumb novelty that men can fit into what we see when we
look out from Earth.

I see the Earth moving,what do you see ?.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re-aligning astronomical principles
    ... >>The whole point of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity is dropping the ... >>stellar background reference in which the plotted motions of the ... > not because of anything Newton said or did, but because it is the only ... >>contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circleand lines correct ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: This is for Kepler
    ... and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first ... The commentary by Galileo affirming that apparent retrograde motions ... Newton assumed that it refers a stationary Earth to retrograde loops ... homocentricity.Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity remains recoverable ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... When assembled into time lapse footage, the motions look like this - ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?
    ... The Copernican reasoning behind the Earth's motions and the proper ... arrived at in a specific way and affirmed by astronomers such as ... think Newton is wrong and Copernicus is right? ... Copernicus did it, and that quotation from Newton you're ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... When assembled into time lapse footage, the motions look like this - ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (talk.origins)