Re: is it safe to trust the scientific method?

Gerald Kelleher wrote:

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.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that no other way of deriving it
is possible.

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.

[SNIP: many words, not in any way indicating what Gerald means
by his terms, or how Copernicus's and Newton's theories differ.]

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.

You haven't given a shred of evidence, other than what seems
to me a risible misunderstanding of one quotation from Newton,
that Newton didn't know how to treat plotted data.

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.

What's this "without acknowledgement" nonsense? What is it
that you want me to acknowledge? That one can infer that
heliocentricity is better than geocentricity from the fact
that a "forward moving earth" can "overtake the slower but
forward moving outer planets"? Sure, of course one can, and
Copernicus did it, and that quotation from Newton you're
so fond of throwing about makes it crystal-clear that Newton
understood it well too.

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.

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.

Yup, I'm dull and dismal. Right.

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.

Equations and carefully constructed argument have revealed
plenty, such as the existence of Neptune.

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.

Yup, I'm a drone. Right.

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 -

In what possible sense is that "geocentric"? Are you using
"geocentric" to mean "not regarding the sun as absolutely
fixed and everything else in the entire universe as moving
relative to it"?

Gerald, are you a sun-worshipper? :-)

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 ?.

All manner of things.

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: is it safe to trust the scientific method?
    ... I think you have completely misunderstood what Newton meant. ... The Copernican reasoning behind the Earth's motions and the proper ... I am promoting Copernican heliocentricity and you are defending ... ,that before Copernicus ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... the false approach by Newton using a hypothetical observer on the Sun ... accepts that it is the Sun that is the body in the Solar System that ... You seem to find the motions of the Solar System dull ... To working positional astronomers - it would be a bad joke. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • 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: You are cataloguers,not astronomers
    ... distances derived from a sidereal framework as Newton did rather than ... work off mean orbital motions through the center of the planet's orbit ... Newton backslid into a quasi-geocentricity (which is far worse than ... astonishment among other astronomers, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading