It is almost indecent to present this material in this forum but as the
material was so badly misinterpreted by Newton and his disciples
(existing and dead) perhaps contemporaries would genuinely like to get
out of the quagmire.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

On page 86 is Kepler's 'Pretzel',astronomically it is second in
importance to the Copernican arrangement of planets.

It represents the geocentric plotting of the motions of Mars against
the stellar background and partially heliocentric as the distinct
retrograde loops approach the Earth's orbit.

The misintepretation is to be found in all Newtonian conceptions
insofar as the partially heliocentric element does not reflect a
stationary Earth but an orbitally motion Earth.

For those who adore intricate representations to refer the motions of
Mars to a stationary Earth is an incredibly dumb thing to yet this is
exactly what happened.Newton imagines that the resolution for
retrogrades motions involves an observer on the Sun but every signle
heliocentrist - Copernicus,Kepler,Roemer,Galileo determined that
apparent retrogrades are resolved by direct observation .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

The faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit and therefore its
annual motion accounts for apparent retrogrades against the stellar
background and simultaneously infers heliocentricity.The heliocentrists
dropped the stellar background and refered all motions to the Earth's
orbital motion.

Newton,the stupid,stupid,stupid,dumb,stupid,silly numbskull decided
that retrogrades are resolved by jumping to the Sun when it is an
uneccessary and inappropriate maneuver.He not just destroys Copernican
heliocentricity,he shuts off the ability to used the Keplerian
refinement and mixes that motion with the Roemerian insight on finite
light speed -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."

Even with time lapse footage of apparent retrogrades of Jupiter and
Saturn before all of you and the resolution hinging on the faster
Earth taking an inner orbital circuit,you lack the choice of affirming
what Newton did not know and any person who is such a slave to
consensus cannot be much of a man.

On 4 Nov 2005 09:58:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote:

It is almost indecent to present this material in this forum but as the
material was so badly misinterpreted by Newton and his disciples
(existing and dead) perhaps contemporaries would genuinely like to get
out of the quagmire.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

On page 86 is Kepler's 'Pretzel',astronomically it is second in
importance to the Copernican arrangement of planets.

Gee, turn the calendar back 400 years, and maybe
we will learn something new.

It represents the geocentric plotting of the motions of Mars against
the stellar background and partially heliocentric as the distinct
retrograde loops approach the Earth's orbit.

How many loops are there?

The misintepretation is to be found in all Newtonian conceptions
insofar as the partially heliocentric element does not reflect a
stationary Earth but an orbitally motion Earth.

So Newton devised Newtonian gravitation to work well
with his mechanics, without knowing the Earth is in orbit around
the sun?

For those who adore intricate representations to refer the motions of
Mars to a stationary Earth is an incredibly dumb thing to yet this is
exactly what happened.Newton imagines that the resolution for
retrogrades motions involves an observer on the Sun but every signle
heliocentrist - Copernicus,Kepler,Roemer,Galileo determined that
apparent retrogrades are resolved by direct observation .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

I thought the heliocentrist would imagine an observer on the sun.

The faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit and therefore its
annual motion accounts for apparent retrogrades against the stellar
background and simultaneously infers heliocentricity.The heliocentrists
dropped the stellar background and refered all motions to the Earth's
orbital motion.

What? The heliocentrists were geocentrists?

Sounds like a conspiracy plot movie to me.

Newton,the stupid,stupid,stupid,dumb,stupid,silly numbskull decided
that retrogrades are resolved by jumping to the Sun when it is an
uneccessary and inappropriate maneuver.

And fatal, also.

He not just destroys Copernican
heliocentricity,he shuts off the ability to used the Keplerian
refinement and mixes that motion with the Roemerian insight on finite
light speed .

I guess he had a better telescope than all before him,
I still prefer a long focal length Newtonian.

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."

Wasn't Newton able to see more Jovian satellites than
those before him?

Even with time lapse footage of apparent retrogrades of Jupiter and
Saturn before all of you and the resolution hinging on the faster
Earth taking an inner orbital circuit,you lack the choice of affirming
what Newton did not know and any person who is such a slave to
consensus cannot be much of a man.

I think Newton knew, I really don't understand what it is
you think Newton didn't know.

All observations are still made essentially from Earth's orbit,
but it is useful to be able to imagine planetary orbits from the sun.

In 1935, my school room had a mechanical model of the
solar system. It was not to scale, and the size of the sun and
planets were not to scale, but it made it clear what the motions
were, and they were obviously not geocentric.

The orbit of the moon was misrepresented though, it
appeared to move in a orbit that was sometimes convex toward
the sun, but that was because of the scaling, it is impossible
to have an accurate scale model.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 09:58:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote:

It is almost indecent to present this material in this forum but as the
material was so badly misinterpreted by Newton and his disciples
(existing and dead) perhaps contemporaries would genuinely like to get
out of the quagmire.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

On page 86 is Kepler's 'Pretzel',astronomically it is second in
importance to the Copernican arrangement of planets.

Gee, turn the calendar back 400 years, and maybe
we will learn something new.


You are experiencing something new,the rediscovery and emergence of
Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity from the shroud of Newtonian
quasi-geocentricity,if you can't get it I assure you that others will.

The time lapse footage of the Saturn and Jupiter going into retrograde
against the stellar backhground translates into a direct perception of
the heliocentric faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit.The toys
in your classroom were just that,the Copernican experience is for men
who know what is happening when they look out on planetary motions.




It represents the geocentric plotting of the motions of Mars against
the stellar background and partially heliocentric as the distinct
retrograde loops approach the Earth's orbit.

How many loops are there?


Childish and unanswerable like all that you do and think.The Keplerian
'Pretzel' representation is the most gorgeous astronomical
representation after the Copernican heliocentric arrangement of
planets,it must be sickening to know that behind it all you cannot
intepret it correctly for you have stuck yourself with a diseased
Newtonian mind and his quasi-geocentric concepts -

"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

Every time I see that passage it turns my stomach for it is the
beginning of the blustering and bluffing that has not ceased at the
expense of the great heliocentrists.





The misintepretation is to be found in all Newtonian conceptions
insofar as the partially heliocentric element does not reflect a
stationary Earth but an orbitally motion Earth.

So Newton devised Newtonian gravitation to work well
with his mechanics, without knowing the Earth is in orbit around
the sun?


Newton was a peevish freak who cared little for the exquisite reasoning
behind heliocentricity and it shows in all that you do where the
Earth's motions are involved.

Heliocentric astronomy was already intricate before thwe empiricists
hijacked the machinary to promiote the 'scientific method' so you prove
yourselves to be little more than intellectual brutes when handling
principles that wither under brute reasoning.

The intelligwent man only need see the retrograde loops against the
stellar background and drop them in favor of the annual orbital motion
of the Earth as accounting for apparent retrogrades and infering
heliocentricity.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

If you feel the need to travel to the Sun to account for retrogrades
then you are nothing but a stupid Newtonain disciple.That is a fact.




For those who adore intricate representations to refer the motions of
Mars to a stationary Earth is an incredibly dumb thing to yet this is
exactly what happened.Newton imagines that the resolution for
retrogrades motions involves an observer on the Sun but every signle
heliocentrist - Copernicus,Kepler,Roemer,Galileo determined that
apparent retrogrades are resolved by direct observation .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

I thought the heliocentrist would imagine an observer on the sun.


Take Galileo's word that retrogrades are resolved by direct
perception,if you need to go framehopping then you are just a
brute,nothing more or nothing less.

"[Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]



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




The faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit and therefore its
annual motion accounts for apparent retrogrades against the stellar
background and simultaneously infers heliocentricity.The heliocentrists
dropped the stellar background and refered all motions to the Earth's
orbital motion.

What? The heliocentrists were geocentrists?

Sounds like a conspiracy plot movie to me.


You are just dumb brutes in handling material where the motions and
orientations of the Earth are required.If you do not mark the
difference between the exquisite reasoning behind heliocentricity and
the dumb Newtonian maneuver then there is nothing I could or would do
about it.

I will however take satisfaction from explaining it to people who have
been assaulted by the exotic garbage coming from theorists.I will make
sure that you are as distinct a group as the creationists for how you
approach the wroks of the early heliocentrists such as
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.

You will reap the rewards of placing a peevish tyrant like Newton and
his idiotic maneuvering as something of a human achievement when it is
much less so.What do you think,that you can argue against the
Copernican reasoning with pretensious arguments .



Newton,the stupid,stupid,stupid,dumb,stupid,silly numbskull decided
that retrogrades are resolved by jumping to the Sun when it is an
uneccessary and inappropriate maneuver.

And fatal, also.

He not just destroys Copernican
heliocentricity,he shuts off the ability to used the Keplerian
refinement and mixes that motion with the Roemerian insight on finite
light speed .

I guess he had a better telescope than all before him,
I still prefer a long focal length Newtonian.

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."

Wasn't Newton able to see more Jovian satellites than
those before him?

Even with time lapse footage of apparent retrogrades of Jupiter and
Saturn before all of you and the resolution hinging on the faster
Earth taking an inner orbital circuit,you lack the choice of affirming
what Newton did not know and any person who is such a slave to
consensus cannot be much of a man.

I think Newton knew, I really don't understand what it is
you think Newton didn't know.

All observations are still made essentially from Earth's orbit,
but it is useful to be able to imagine planetary orbits from the sun.

In 1935, my school room had a mechanical model of the
solar system. It was not to scale, and the size of the sun and
planets were not to scale, but it made it clear what the motions
were, and they were obviously not geocentric.

The orbit of the moon was misrepresented though, it
appeared to move in a orbit that was sometimes convex toward
the sun, but that was because of the scaling, it is impossible
to have an accurate scale model.

Joe Fischer

Talk all you will of the homocentric concept of relativity for it suits
my purposes,the real substance is back at Newton and his distinct
maneuvering.I now know that none of it is especially difficult and
especially to re-align the heliocentric principles back to their
original format through direct perceptions for the reolutions for
apparent retrogrades.

You enjoy yourself with the claustraphobic world of early 20th century
insanity,the poor buggers were only trying to escape the horrible
legacy of Newtonian maneuvering unfortunately they expanded it rather
than anything else.Conspiracy ?,No,just utter stupidity,greed
,pretension and a cancer to what human achievement is.

On 5 Nov 2005 01:08:35 -0800, "oriel36" wrote:

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

This date seemed odd, so I went to google to see who was
alive at that time, and I want to thank you, as I found some very
interesting reading, the chronology of events in the study of gravity.
I have the Principia in paperback, Kepler's Epitome of
Copernican Astronomy and a number of other older writings,
like Airy, etc.
But to see it all together in a very short space with
hyperlinks to all the people and events was enjoyable,
thanks again.

I feel you are a little extreme in the importance you
seem to place on isolated writings, Newton was rather
old in 1719, and may have been focused on the orbits
of the Jovian moons, rather than on the orbits of the major
planets.

As I do not believe in Euclidean space, orbits need
to be explained in a different way that has little bearing
on Keplerian or Newtonian concepts.
But I do continue to return to their writings, any
writing or discussion always brings new things to light
for me.
While gravity experiments are advancing rapidly,
gravity theory is stuck, mostly stuck on Newton, because
of thr complexity of General Relativity making it difficult
to be understood.

Surely your interests are broader than an interpretation
of writings 300 to 400 years old. So many things were
difficult then, the memories and fears of the plague were
slowly fading, and knowledge and understanding and
even documented observations had to be developed.

Regardless of what he wrote, and how he went
about it, his mechanics and gravitation made so many
things easy, and therefore more things were possible.

I consider the simple gravity formula to be less
than insightful, it does very little with the addition of
the term "gravitational mass", as it simply specifies
that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass,
and that trades science for making gravity and
mechanics compatible in the most simple way.

But I see no gain in focusing on any particular
writing or concept, the important thing is not to let
advances take as long as they did between Newton
and Einstein.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 01:08:35 -0800, "oriel36" wrote:

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

This date seemed odd, so I went to google to see who was
alive at that time, and I want to thank you, as I found some very
interesting reading, the chronology of events in the study of gravity.

Newtonian gravitation is simply terrestial ballistics applied to
planetary motion and it does not represent a progression and a
productive avenue,in this respect,it is awful in the extreme that the
works of Copernicus and the Keplerian refinement goes into supporting
Newton's agenda.

The commentary by Galileo affirming that apparent retrograde motions
are resolved by the annual orbital motion of the Earth or what amounts
to the same thing,dropping the stellar background reference thus
inferring heliocentricity,however Newton did not even get that far and
introduced an uneccessary and inappropriate observer on the Sun to
resolve retrogrades.If the original Copernican insight was treated so
poorly then I assure you it is nothing compared to the intellectual
violence visited on Kepler.



I have the Principia in paperback, Kepler's Epitome of
Copernican Astronomy and a number of other older writings,
like Airy, etc.
But to see it all together in a very short space with
hyperlinks to all the people and events was enjoyable,
thanks again.


What you will not see in the way Kepler plotted the motions of Mars
against the stellar background and incorporated a partially
heliocentric view within the same representation.Page 86 contains the
most important representation in astronomy after the Copernican
heliocentric arrangement -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf


"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre, witho ne extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth
repeats its circle sixteen times "

Astronomia Nova 1609

The opposite of 'simple ' in astronomical methods is 'intricate' while
for your may believe that the opposite of 'simple' in Newtonian terms
is 'difficult'. The only difficulties with the Keplerian representation
is lack of familiarity otherwise it is one of the most enjoyable and
intricate graphic representations that you will ever come across.It
does not lend itself easy to interpretation which is why people like
Newton assumed that it refers a stationary Earth to retrograde loops
that can be transfered directly into a Copernican/Keplerian
heliocentric geometry -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct.."

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

In short,this is an incredibly brutish way to resolve retrogrades by
Newton and in direct conflict with the exquisite explanations by
Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.


I feel you are a little extreme in the importance you
seem to place on isolated writings, Newton was rather
old in 1719, and may have been focused on the orbits
of the Jovian moons, rather than on the orbits of the major
planets.


He could not even get the major orbits correct and worse,he involved
the astronomical geometry of Roemer's insight on finite light speed
with his ballistic agenda -

"Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior
Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of
their Gravity. "

Opticks 1704

How much destruction will people allow this man to visit on the works
of men who were all too familiar with the intricate nature of motions
as they looked out on the cosmos.






As I do not believe in Euclidean space, orbits need
to be explained in a different way that has little bearing
on Keplerian or Newtonian concepts.
But I do continue to return to their writings, any
writing or discussion always brings new things to light
for me.
While gravity experiments are advancing rapidly,
gravity theory is stuck, mostly stuck on Newton, because
of thr complexity of General Relativity making it difficult
to be understood.

The entire relativistic concept is an expansion on Newton's departure
from pure Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity to quasi-geocentricity
and ultimately homocentricity.It is as though men could not support the
awful maneuvering of Newton but rather than do an audit they decided to
despense with geometry altogether and go with sub human
homocentricity.Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity remains recoverable
from Newton's awful maneuvering but nothing is recoverable from
relativistic homocentricity.

The retrograde resolution which infers heliocentricity disappears when
Copernicus is mentioned in this awful era and even he joins the stream
of people whoes work goes into supporting exotic pre-galactic notions
of a homocentric universe -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle







Surely your interests are broader than an interpretation
of writings 300 to 400 years old. So many things were
difficult then, the memories and fears of the plague were
slowly fading, and knowledge and understanding and
even documented observations had to be developed.


I rarely express the following view on a forum, for most certainly
most of my time is promoting the re-alignment of astronomical
principles back to the original conceptions by Kepler and Copernicus
from view which are erroneously constructed,Newton and Flamsteed being
among those who took unethical shortcuts.

In 1990 I was working on the geometry of stellar collapse using the
principle of two outer boundary rings and a smaller intersecting
central ring and I had the thing copyrighted back then .

4 years later this shows up -

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/pic/sn1987a.gif

It may be too early to say that a supernova event is not the end of the
story but the transition from a star from one form to another certainly
makes it appealing in accounting for the elements within our solar
system.That is the direction I give my work which is almost personal
now .



Regardless of what he wrote, and how he went
about it, his mechanics and gravitation made so many
things easy, and therefore more things were possible.


The price of those unethical shortcuts or 'making things easy' shuts
off the ability to use the Earth's acial and orbital motions and
orientations properly for astronomical,geological and climatological
purposes.

Do you really wish to ignore the Earth's compound heliocentric and
galactic motions and how they influence each other for the sake of
treating the Earth in an isolated solar system ?.





I consider the simple gravity formula to be less
than insightful, it does very little with the addition of
the term "gravitational mass", as it simply specifies
that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass,
and that trades science for making gravity and
mechanics compatible in the most simple way.

But I see no gain in focusing on any particular
writing or concept, the important thing is not to let
advances take as long as they did between Newton
and Einstein.

Joe Fischer

The transition from pure Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity to
Newtonian quasi-geocentricity and ultimately to relativistic
homocentricity is a descent .Unlike others who argue within the
Newtonian/relativistic framework,I do not see the descent as terminal
but as setting the groundwork for something that most people long for.

I am a Christian and love the intricate nature of my faith that does
not condescend to those who like to keep things simple,to recognise the
intricacies is to become wise and these things constantly refresh each
other for those who have the willingness to withold pre-conceived
notions and prejudices.Newton was a Christian in name only for he was
an Arian and set Jesus up as god's moral spokesman while he set himself
up as god's scientific spokesman.No doubt that to you this may appear a
dIversion from technical matters but for someone like me it is actually
more important than the technical aspects for it is by 'their fruit
that you may know them' and the Newtonian fruit is unedible.

Thank you for your civility and indeed it is a welcome retreat from
those who believe that they can wear people out by various designs,my
response has always to try and open up as many avenues as
possible,historical,technical,future directions and so on.I have come
to detest my own lack of clarity but then again, if a genuinely
productive person is required to balance outward concerns with concepts
which are hugely complex,the strain will show in poor expression.This
is not to excuse the awful shortcomings in my writing but that I have
never known any other way and do not complain .