Theory explained in 3 parts

[Gerald Kelleher]

Newton's idea was the Earth attracts an apple, the moon attracts the tides,the Earth attracts the moon and ultimately the Sun attracts the Earth hence the 'universal theory of gravitation'. The upscale from the fall of an apple to planetary motion was done via Kepler's assertion that planetary orbital periods are loosely correlated to distance from the Sun but within Newton's scheme there are a number of things going on, most notably the attempt to connect small scale experimentation with astronomy via the 'scientific method'.

[Mike Collins]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Newton's idea was the Earth attracts an apple, the moon attracts the
tides,the Earth attracts the moon and ultimately the Sun attracts the
Earth hence the 'universal theory of gravitation'. The upscale from the
fall of an apple to planetary motion was done via Kepler's assertion that
planetary orbital periods are loosely correlated to distance from the Sun
but within Newton's scheme there are a number of things going on, most
notably the attempt to connect small scale experimentation with astronomy
via the 'scientific method'.

To show just how eight Newton was you just need to look at Apollo 11.

The command module pilot gave this explanation to his five year old son so
it might be simple enough for you.

ttp://www.americaspace.com/2012/07/15/totally-different-moon-the-arrival-of-apollo-11/


Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Mike Collins
To show just how eight Newton was you just need to look at Apollo 11.

I am answering any objections in this thread. Apollo 11, washing machines, computers are all engineering sciences much like medical sciences while this is an astronomy/terrestrial science forum where the motions of the Earth and the arrangement of the solar system affects experiences and life on the surface. The idea that the fall of an apples can upscale to planetary orbital motion is through a sequence of precepts outlined in the original presentation in this thread. It is fine saying that objects attract each other but Newton had to apply it to astronomical methods and insights and that is where it disappears in a cloud of slogan chanting, stock phrases, voodoo and bluffing.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Apollo 11,
are all engineering sciences
The idea that the fall of an apples can upscale to planetary orbital motion
It is fine saying that objects attract each other but Newton had to apply it
to astronomical methods and insights and that is where it disappears in a
cloud of slogan chanting, stock phrases, voodoo and bluffing.

The Apollo 11 spacecraft, during part of its flight, orbited the Earth, and
during another part of its flight, orbited the Moon.

The Moon orbits the Earth.

If what you're saying is that Isaac Newton's gravitation applies to artificial
objects like the Apollo 11 spacecraft, or communications satellites like Early
Bird or Telstar...

but *not* to the Moon,

you have to explain why both the Moon and a satellite do the same thing - orbit
the Earth - for completely different reasons.

There are *reasons* why people here are not open to the new ideas you're trying
to present.

John Savard

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:14:24 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

You,by your nature, are excluded from all discourse so form your own thread .

[Gerald Kelleher]

The 'universal theory of gravity' is a byword for many things including the assumption that experimental sciences scale up to orbital dynamics -

"Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity or its matter, gravitates towards the earth, that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon, and all the planets mutually one towards another, and the comets in like manner towards the sun, we must, in consequence or this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. ." Newton

That assertion sits on its own without any relevance to astronomical methods and insights that preceded it even though an attempt was made to make it appear that he was following astronomical discipline.

This is an entirely different thread than any other insofar as any objectors cannot rely on engineering propaganda but must detail exactly, using Newton's own descriptions how the mutual attraction of the apple and the Earth is brought into the realm of astronomical observations, methods and insights and specifically that the planets demonstrate variable orbital speed as they orbit the Sun.

[Bill]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
You,by your nature, are excluded from all discourse so form your own thread .

In case you truly don't get it: It's easy to dismiss and, and all, of
us with a wave of your keyboard; but it's going to be rather difficult
for you to ever wash that "stain" off of yourself.

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:20:25 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:

Another nuisance however you too get the chance to explain the theory as it came down to us in words but not graphics or images which are now easily accessible.

"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

Show me the diagrams where the Sun around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth around the Sun. You can't do it but then again I am explaining the theory in 3 parts to an audience who have no idea what that mouthful of Newton means in term of the 'universal law of gravity'.

This is not like any thread before as the onus is on you noiseboxes to present the principles of your beliefs in graphical form.

[Mike Collins]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Another nuisance however you too get the chance to explain the theory as it came down to us in words but not graphics or images which are now easily accessible.
"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton
Show me the diagrams where the Sun around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth around the Sun. You can't do it but then again I am explaining the theory in 3 parts to an audience who have no idea what that mouthful of Newton means in term of the 'universal law of gravity'.
This is not like any thread before as the onus is on you noiseboxes to present the principles of your beliefs in graphical form.

Are you saying that the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not the same as the distance between the Earth and the Sun?

By the way do you think the Apollo astronauts were deluded when they explained that their journey was controlled by Sir Isaac Newton?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Mike Collins
Are you saying that the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not the same as the distance between the Earth and the Sun?

Here you go, this is how theorists/celestial sphere enthusiasts see the motion of the Sun about the Earth -

Loading Image...

"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

Now explain exactly how you get from mutual attraction that satisfies the fall of an apple and planetary orbital motion to the original astronomical methods used by Copernicus and Kepler. The 'universal law of attraction' doesn't allow you to use analogies as the whole point is that an apple's motion and a planet's motion are the same so, once again, how to you get from motion at an experimental level due to attraction to planetary orbital motion. This is your theory so explain it graphically.

[Bill]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Another nuisance however you too get the chance to explain the theory as it came down to us in words but not graphics or images which are now easily accessible.
"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton
Show me the diagrams where the Sun around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth around the Sun. You can't do it but then again I am explaining the theory in 3 parts to an audience who have no idea what that mouthful of Newton means in term of the 'universal law of gravity'.
This is not like any thread before as the onus is on you noiseboxes to present the principles of your beliefs in graphical form.

Quadibloc is the closest thing you have to a friend on SAA. If you wish
to dismiss him as you did, that's your perogative; but your sword cuts
both ways doesn't it?

Careful you don't chop off your own foot.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Bill
Careful you don't chop off your own foot.

You are all the same to me at this stage hence this thread is specifically for those who wish to promote the idea of universal attraction of objects to each other and how it is applied to astronomical methods/insights. Historically, nobody ever knew how the switch was made from mutual attraction to orbital motion as a universal concept but that is now being done minus the slogan chanting,stock phrases,voodoo and bluffing.

There are a number of contributors here who are nuisances but even they get a chance to present what Newton did and how he went about it in his own words and supports by graphics,images and so on.

[Chris.B]

Post by Gerald Kelleher

Post by Bill
Careful you don't chop off your own foot.

You are all the same to me at this stage hence this thread is specifically for those who wish to promote the idea of universal attraction of objects to each other and how it is applied to astronomical methods/insights. Historically, nobody ever knew how the switch was made from mutual attraction to orbital motion as a universal concept but that is now being done minus the slogan chanting,stock phrases,voodoo and bluffing.
There are a number of contributors here who are nuisances but even they get a chance to present what Newton did and how he went about it in his own words and supports by graphics,images and so on.

I'll keep it simple for you: ;-)

When he was young he was very young and did such childish things.
But when he grew up he was still not grown up and still wrote the silliest things.

Q: What's a cross between a parrot and a cockerel?
A: A Kelleher's Cockatoo on a good day.

Kelleher had a little lamb his theory was as white as snow
And everywhere that Kelleher went his followers were sure to go

Dumpty Trumpty went up the hill to fetch another pail of gold.
Dumpty Trumpty fell down the hill and America caught a bad cold.

An image is worth a thousand words..
So why do we need both from 1461?
Is he as thick as two shorts sticks?

Answers on a foxed, virtual postcard, please, to:
A nuisance with nuance.
Astronomy for Infants.
Fantasy Ireland.

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:51:26 AM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:

You too get a chance to explain the opinion (theory) how universal attraction between objections or fluids and objects (tides/moon) acts for both the fall of an apple and orbital motion of the planets using the original assertions of Newton.

Get it out of your system but mark well there is a good reason the Brit contributors never respond to you and your histrionics. Again, if you have something to say about the historical and technical details then do it now or remain with conformist views and the mediocrity that breeds it. This is not a platform for your squaking but if you have to do it then restrict it to this thread.

[Chris.B]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
You too get a chance to explain the opinion (theory) how universal attraction between objections or fluids and objects (tides/moon) acts for both the fall of an apple and orbital motion of the planets using the original assertions of Newton.
Get it out of your system but mark well there is a good reason the Brit contributors never respond to you and your histrionics. Again, if you have something to say about the historical and technical details then do it now or remain with conformist views and the mediocrity that breeds it. This is not a platform for your squaking but if you have to do it then restrict it to this thread.

I have never knowingly squaked at anyone! ;-)

The onus of proof of any assertion is on the oddball.

Consider yourself nominated. You do the maths.

Newton could. What's your excuse?

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:33:18 PM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:

The next few threads, when I post them , do not invite those who can't explain their own opinions so get on with it. Newton asserted a proposal based on mutual attraction and this is fine until you have to place it in an astronomical setting. Now go ahead and present the graphics and all the imaging that is currently available to support his contention that the fall of an apple scales all the way up to orbital dynamics.

If you want to be someone's else's dog then that is okay but you certainly achieved what you aimed for.

[Chris.B]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
If you want to be someone's else's dog then that is okay but you certainly achieved what you aimed for.

Okay, I'll do the [simple] maths:

IA + E = 1461^[HBS]

Ignorant Assertion + Evasion = Your Habitual Bullshit.

QED?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Chris.B

Post by Gerald Kelleher
If you want to be someone's else's dog then that is okay but you certainly achieved what you aimed for.

IA + E = 1461^[HBS]
Ignorant Assertion + Evasion = Your Habitual Bullshit.
QED?

If that is the best you can do then stick to your constant attempt to be accepted but I can read these mutt comments in the Telegraph or Mail comment sections any day. Empirical followers deal in protest politics and talk down society as a means to distinguish themselves but that is merely noise. The fact is that what Newton tried to do is interesting and involves the incorporation of RA/Dec into the idea of mutual attraction that some call 'gravity', however, once his idiosyncratic opinions are identified, people see them as disruptive.

I can do no more with you.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
The fact is that what Newton tried to do is interesting and involves the
incorporation of RA/Dec into the idea of mutual attraction that some call
'gravity', however, once his idiosyncratic opinions are identified, people see
them as disruptive.

"people"

Anyone besides yourself yet has come to see what Newton did as "disruptive"?

John Savard

[Gerald Kelleher]

You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown, and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them. He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape" Rouse Ball 1908

Neither cowardice nor stupidity can manage to do anything other than affirm what that mathematician correctly identifies so this thread is designed specifically to keep the usual nuisances from interfering further and exposes the corrupt nature of everyone else.

[Bill]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before -

You're not offering any a damn thing other than a chance to "entertain"
you... to be your "whore". NO THANK YOU!

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Bill

Post by Gerald Kelleher
You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before -

You're not offering any a damn thing other than a chance to "entertain"
you... to be your "whore". NO THANK YOU!

I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words -

"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...This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

It doesn't matter if someone has a partial clue or none at all, Newton's unethical form of double modelling can't be represented and only serves the purpose of demonstrating deficiencies in the actual approaches of the original Sun centered astronomers.

Cowardice and stupidity is going to restricted to this thread if no attempt is made to explain your own theories/opinions as followers of Newton.

[0***@gmail.com]

Post by Gerald Kelleher

Post by Bill

Post by Gerald Kelleher
You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before -

You're not offering any a damn thing other than a chance to "entertain"
you... to be your "whore". NO THANK YOU!

I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words -
"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...This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton
It doesn't matter if someone has a partial clue or none at all, Newton's unethical form of double modelling can't be represented and only serves the purpose of demonstrating deficiencies in the actual approaches of the original Sun centered astronomers.

double modelling? -- what's that about?

... and besides, wasn't there a whole bunch of diagrams and graphics already included in his last book, "the system of the world", (the one that he wrote after he were dead?)

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Cowardice and stupidity is going to restricted to this thread if no attempt is made to explain your own theories/opinions as followers of Newton.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by 0***@gmail.com
double modelling? -- what's that about?

There is no budget in a Sun centered system for true/apparent motions or absolute/relative space and motion as Newton asserted. Any astronomer worthy of the name would simply recognize that a faster Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets not only causes them to temporarily fall behind in view but also infers a stationary and central Sun -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The double modelling comes from a technical non sequitur where motions modeled from the Earth are apparent and modeled from the Sun are true -

"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

The time lapse of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn and the easy way to interpret the motions obviates the need for the direct/retrograde loops which were the means by which Newton tried to create the impression of apparent motions seen from Earth -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160915.html

Tricky I know but there is always the option to join the perpetually offended in this newsgroup as I go on to use more diagram, graphics and images to untangle theory from astronomy.

[Bill]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words

So you alone can adjudicate the issue! You're just a manipulative jerk.

[palsing]

Post by Bill

Post by Gerald Kelleher
I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words

So you alone can adjudicate the issue! You're just a manipulative jerk.

... and that is being kind!

[Chris.B]

Post by palsing

Post by Bill

Post by Gerald Kelleher
I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words

So you alone can adjudicate the issue! You're just a manipulative jerk.

... and that is being kind!

Unfortunately kindness is not a common trait of this low achieving sociopath.
1461 hoped to become a pseudo-science, cult leader but his only real follower is the poor devil in his bathroom mirror.
It is not yet too late for him to post some "entertaining" YT videos to increase his potential audience.
But he seems happy to post on a forgotten board with a tiny head count of regulars.
Basically as close to anonymity, while still enjoying safety in numbers, as he could ever hope to achieve.
The only way down, from here, is posting his silly nonsense in a bottle and tossing it into the Atlantic without an address label.

Squake

[Mike Collins]

Post by Chris.B

Post by palsing

Post by Bill

Post by Gerald Kelleher
I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the
notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations
and orbital dynamics in Newton's words

So you alone can adjudicate the issue! You're just a manipulative jerk.

... and that is being kind!

Unfortunately kindness is not a common trait of this low achieving sociopath.
1461 hoped to become a pseudo-science, cult leader but his only real
follower is the poor devil in his bathroom mirror.
It is not yet too late for him to post some "entertaining" YT videos to
increase his potential audience.
But he seems happy to post on a forgotten board with a tiny head count of regulars.
Basically as close to anonymity, while still enjoying safety in numbers,
as he could ever hope to achieve.
The only way down, from here, is posting his silly nonsense in a bottle
and tossing it into the Atlantic without an address label.
Squake

He could try to break Brad Guth's record of a thread with more than a
hundred posts all replied to by only himself.

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 4:12:29 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins

Well's that's a first but I suppose the old Brit spite mentality would rather see the world blow up than admit they made poor decisions. Astronomy will eventually take flight once more in the hearts of humanity but not without a struggle to untangle it from the theorists who have turned space into a junkyard.

[Bill]

Post by Mike Collins
He could try to break Brad Guth's record of a thread with more than a
hundred posts all replied to by only himself.

No matter how often, or how much, any of us reply to him - his audience
IS effectively zero. (been that way for quite some time). You'd think
it should have caused him to adopt a better strategy; but apparently it
hasn't concerned him.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Bill

Post by Mike Collins
He could try to break Brad Guth's record of a thread with more than a
hundred posts all replied to by only himself.

No matter how often, or how much, any of us reply to him - his audience
IS effectively zero. (been that way for quite some time). You'd think
it should have caused him to adopt a better strategy; but apparently it
hasn't concerned him.
--

My audience is fine and despite appearances some people have already adjusted, albeit awkwardly, to the partitioning between perspectives which separate the faster moving inner planets from the slower moving outer planets -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160915.html

Unlike other threads you all get your chance to present images or graphics to support the opinion on mutual attraction otherwise called the 'universal theory of gravitation' by detailing how it applies to observations.Double modelling has already been explained in this thread so off you go.

Btw, the direct/retrograde motions of the inner planets are spectacular and altogether different that the perspective which governs the outer planets -

Loading Image...

To untangle theory from astronomy in order to allow humanity to appreciate observations seen from a moving Earth, a platform has been created ,audience or no audience. Moan away, in astronomical affairs few make it to adulthood.

[Bill]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Unlike other threads you all get your chance to present images or graphics to support the opinion on mutual attraction otherwise called the 'universal theory of gravitation' by detailing how it applies to observations.Double modelling has already been explained in this thread so off you go.

If we're going to "service" you, the least you could do is offer to pay
for folks time. If I were interested in your "chance" (I'm not
intersted), I'd require a $300(US) per hour and $2400.00 retainer.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Bill

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Unlike other threads you all get your chance to present images or graphics to support the opinion on mutual attraction otherwise called the 'universal theory of gravitation' by detailing how it applies to observations.Double modelling has already been explained in this thread so off you go.

If we're going to "service" you, the least you could do is offer to pay
for folks time. If I were interested in your "chance" (I'm not
intersted), I'd require a $300(US) per hour and $2400.00 retainer.
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

The term 'amateur' in astronomy is a creative/productive one rather than who can afford magnification equipment so while many human endeavors place a value on creativity, in this instance it is not possible as we all share the same observations and conclusions. To this end Galileo wrote -

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” Galileo

If things were normal then people would simply enjoy that time lapse works for the slower moving outer planets while sequential imaging works better for the inner planets to convey the structure of the solar system -

Loading Image...

http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

You see, people already know what works and what doesn't even while no educational or space agency puts the narrative into an easy to understand format as I have done.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Btw, the direct/retrograde motions of the inner planets are spectacular and altogether different that the perspective which governs the outer planets -

Mars is an inner planet and you are ridiculous.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Btw, the direct/retrograde motions of the inner planets are spectacular and altogether different that the perspective which governs the outer planets -

Mars is an inner planet and you are ridiculous.

Mars is a slower moving outer planet, Venus is a faster moving inner planet - this is how we see the solar system from our vantage point within the system.

Your sole purpose in this newsgroup is to attach yourself to my threads and that is seriously unhealthy for all concerned.

[Chris.B]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Your sole purpose in this newsgroup is to attach yourself to my threads and that is seriously unhealthy for all concerned.

We already know you are a sociopath [psychopath] from oft-repeated behaviours.

Do you also have a history of schizophrenia?

That might explain a great deal.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Chris.B

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Your sole purpose in this newsgroup is to attach yourself to my threads and that is seriously unhealthy for all concerned.

We already know you are a sociopath [psychopath] from oft-repeated behaviours.
Do you also have a history of schizophrenia?
That might explain a great deal.

When you post about '1461' again make sure you get it right as it is a proportion of rotations to orbital circuits , in this case 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits which cover the calendar system and the way of formatting observations. Predictive astronomy is based on the calendar framework and this is where RA/Dec comes in and ultimately the scheme of Newton which tries to connect the opinion of mutual attractions to astronomy fails in a timekeeping sense.

When you stop being the barking dog of the newsgroup you get a chance to recover some human dignity but it seems you are happy in your intellectual squalor.

[Chris.B]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
When you stop being the barking dog of the newsgroup you get a chance to recover some human dignity but it seems you are happy in your intellectual squalor.

Pot, kettle, black.

Do you have a history of schizophrenia?

Does this explain your many delusions and your aggression towards far better educated critics of those same delusions?

Do you have any grasp upon everyday reality, at all?

Your online behaviour would suggest you abandoned reality many years ago.

Do you have any ability, at all, to recognise when you [alone] are completely wrong?

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:35:27 PM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:

Unlike other threads,this is not a platform for the usual histrionics, as far as I concerned what remains of contributors to the newsgroup is no better or worse than the next ,that being said, you all have a chance to present how an opinion on mutual attraction between objects intersects with astronomical principles and insights.

You all have a job to do that I know is not possible using graphics and images so I will eventually demonstrate what was attempted, why it dopesn't work and more importantly, what it is blocking.

[palsing]

Rotations with respect to what?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by palsing
Rotations with respect to what?

This is a different type of thread Paul and to be fair to you, despite your mild insults and stock phrases, you are able to actually dwell on technical detail and have an interest in astronomy.

This is fundamentally a thread based on orbital motions and how we see the faster moving inner planets from the slower moving outer planets in a stationary Sun centered system. There are no apparent/true motions as Newton insisted, there are only the actual motions of the planets around the Sun seen from a moving Earth with the motion of the outer planets best appreciated using time lapse footage and the faster moving inner planets using sequential imaging . They now phrase the changes as size and illumination increases and that is progress that was discussed at length in this forum -

Loading Image...

If you insist in following Newton in the belief that the motions of the planets around the Sun are not seen directly from Earth then I insist you must counter the imaging with alternative imaging or graphics -

"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

If you find it too painful then withdraw but don't descend to the racket of others who can't supply the arguments where an opinion of mutual attraction was applied to the observed motions of the planets.

[palsing]

Post by Gerald Kelleher

Post by palsing
Rotations with respect to what?

This is a different type of thread Paul and to be fair to you, despite your mild insults and stock phrases, you are able to actually dwell on technical detail and have an interest in astronomy.
This is fundamentally a thread based on orbital motions and how we see the faster moving inner planets from the slower moving outer planets in a stationary Sun centered system...

Well Gerald, you really *must* use the proper terminology, as defined by the Astronomy Professionals. You have surely heard this before, but you continue to deny these terms because *you* don't like them, but tens of thousands of us regular folks understand the reasoning just fine. The (4) rocky planets closest to the Sun are known as the 'inner' planets, and the (4) gas giants are known as the 'outer' planets. Why you are so stubborn about this is beyond me. It has been this way for well over a century and will remain so forever. The terms you really want to use are 'inferior' and 'superior' when it comes to planetary location. Of course, inferior planets are not actually 'inferior' in the usual sense, because in astronomy it just means 'closer to the Sun', and likewise 'superior' only means 'farther from the Sun'. These terms are correct from whatever planet you happen to be talking about at the time.

Post by Gerald Kelleher
... There are no apparent/true motions as Newton insisted...

No apparent motions? What are you talking about? Your very own references show how the superior planets 'apparently' move in retrograde motion, even though we know they don't actually move backward... and so did Newton!

Post by Gerald Kelleher
... there are only the actual motions of the planets around the Sun seen from a moving Earth with the motion of the outer planets best appreciated using time lapse footage and the faster moving inner planets using sequential imaging . They now phrase the changes as size and illumination increases and that is progress that was discussed at length in this forum -
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1703/VenusDec2016March2017small.jpg
If you insist in following Newton in the belief that the motions of the planets around the Sun are not seen directly from Earth then I insist you must counter the imaging with alternative imaging or graphics -
"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

Oh, but you apparently do not understand Newton's use of the word 'direct'. He certainly did NOT mean that the motions of the planets around the sun are not seen directly from Earth! Not even close! Rather then me talking forever, read this...

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_direct_motion

... which will explain very simply and clearly what is meant by 'direct motion'. It is not what you think...

Post by Gerald Kelleher
... If you find it too painful then withdraw but don't descend to the racket of others who can't supply the arguments where an opinion of mutual attraction was applied to the observed motions of the planets.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by palsing

Post by Gerald Kelleher

Post by palsing
Rotations with respect to what?

This is a different type of thread Paul and to be fair to you, despite your mild insults and stock phrases, you are able to actually dwell on technical detail and have an interest in astronomy.
This is fundamentally a thread based on orbital motions and how we see the faster moving inner planets from the slower moving outer planets in a stationary Sun centered system...

Well Gerald, you really *must* use the proper terminology, as defined by the Astronomy Professionals. You have surely heard this before, but you continue to deny these terms because *you* don't like them, but tens of thousands of us regular folks understand the reasoning just fine.

This thread allows you to explain in graphical form and imaging how you get from universal mutual attraction of objects to the original astronomical insights proposed by Copernicus and Kepler. If you can't manage to talk in terms of faster/inner and slower/outer orbital motions of the planets seen from Earth then you are not going to appreciate what went wrong and what was deficient in the original proposals of the Sun centered astronomers.

When you talk about 'professionals' you mean theorists or people in charge of really big telescopes but they can be left to their own devices and I have nothing to say to or about them. This is normalizing the language by which observers have a vantage point of the solar system,its structure and how we see the motion of the planets closer to the Sun (inner planets) and those further from our planet from the Sun (outer planets).

Post by palsing

Post by Gerald Kelleher
"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

Oh, but you apparently do not understand Newton's use of the word 'direct'. He certainly did NOT mean that the motions of the planets around the sun are not seen directly from Earth! Not even close! Rather then me talking forever, read this

I told you and the rest it is impossible to do so talk forever if you wish, the direct/retrogrades of the planets are separated by perspective depending on whether they are moving faster or slower than the Earth. There is no true/apparent motions, there is just normal judgments people use everyday when they get into their car and judge motions of other cars. Everyone is good at this which is why the partitioning of direct/retrograde motions should be celebrated in schools and elsewhere -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

Fair dues for trying to present a graphic but perhaps find something more suitable. This is not a thread for cutting people to pieces or insults, it is designed to demonstrate that what you believe via a late 17th century ideology is really obstructive for 21st century people.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Mars is a slower moving outer planet, Venus is a faster moving inner planet - this is how we see the solar system from our vantage point within the system.

Inner and outer planets are astronomical terms with actual meanings of which you are ignorant:

https://www.universetoday.com/34577/inner-and-outer-planets/

The inner planets (in order of distance from the sun, closest to furthest) are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. After an asteroid belt comes the outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

What you mean to talk about are the inferior and superior planets. But carry on, it makes your posts more obvious nonsensical to casual readers when you get your astronomical terms wrong.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Mars is a slower moving outer planet, Venus is a faster moving inner planet - this is how we see the solar system from our vantage point within the system.

https://www.universetoday.com/34577/inner-and-outer-planets/

Inner and outer planets are relative perspectives seen from whatever planet the others are viewed from. The Earth becomes an inner planet seen from Mars as it will show phases and behave much as Venus does from our vantage point while Jupiter and Saturn seen from Mars will show no phases and will temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Mars overtakes them.

People of common sense merely take it up as faster/inner and slower/outer and move on as a society who has already taken the first journeys into space as confident people. Say good bye to superior/inferior unless you are talking about intellects.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Say good bye to superior/inferior unless you are talking about intellects.

Or astronomy, but you know less about that than my dog, so carry on.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Say good bye to superior/inferior unless you are talking about intellects.

Or astronomy, but you know less about that than my dog, so carry on.

This thread is specifically designed for every supporter of Newton and his notion that mutual attraction between objects and predictive astronomy mesh. I know none of you can describe what he tried to do using his own words and by employing graphics and images to support his contentions. At this stage the different perspectives between the slower moving outer planets and the faster moving inner planets are fixed for a community that now journeys into space regularly.

I know many here lack integrity like zombies who can't be put down however this was a final chance to present what you yourselves believe as astronomy is a visual exercise. You failed to do so like the few others and can be safely discounted but stay away from the descriptions that come later.

[Bill]

Post by n***@gmail.com
Or astronomy, but you know less about that than my dog, so carry on.

Don't you love people, Iike 1461, who have loads of
"authority"/expertise - and no accountability/responsibility?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Bill

Post by n***@gmail.com
Or astronomy, but you know less about that than my dog, so carry on.

Don't you love people, Iike 1461, who have loads of
"authority"/expertise - and no accountability/responsibility?
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

It is the most inviolate proportion in all astronomy and thousands of years old - the fact that the planet turns 1461 times for 4 circuits of the Sun, formatted as 365 1/4 rotations for 1 circuit naturally or via the calendar framework of 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations. The latter framework came first and comes down to us in written form through the Egyptian's astronomers recognition that the star Sirius skips a first annual appearance by one day after three cycles of 365 days.

All this has been covered before multiple times so now it is up to those who scream in pain that they can't render the mutual attraction theory into astronomical shape for the simple reason that it can't - it is bluffing using common astronomical phrases but no substance within the confines of astronomical methods and insights. It goes for one and all here so scream away to your heart's content, that is all you are allowed.

I have given enough time for contributors to support the 'universal theory of attraction' meshed in with the words of Copernicus/Kepler and the window of opportunity is drawing to close for the coward,the diseased and the stupid alike.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Oops, the star Sirius still skips a first annual appearance by 1 day/rotation after four cycles of 365 days hence the calendar package which uses an external reference and the day/night cycles (daily rotation) to gauge the fractional proportion of rotations for one orbital circuit, in this case 365 1/4 rotations to one circuit or 1461 rotations for 4 circuits. People who contend this fact
or jeer me on account of it are mindless.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Oops, the star Sirius still skips a first annual appearance by 1 day/rotation after four cycles of 365 days

This year it was after the midsummer solstice, and in ancient Egypt is was before the summer solstice. People who understand astronomy explain this as a consequence of the precession of the equinox.

But you don't believe in precession so you can't explain it, yet you keep bringing up the heliacal rising of Sirius as if it helps you instead of proving you utterly wrong.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Gerald Kelleher
Oops, the star Sirius still skips a first annual appearance by 1 day/rotation after four cycles of 365 days

This year it was after the midsummer solstice, and in ancient Egypt is was before the summer solstice. People who understand astronomy explain this as a consequence of the precession of the equinox.

The people who watched the solar eclipse were looking at the totality of the inner solar system as they were doing so and this includes the observation that the star Regulus was to the left of the Sun -

Loading Image...

It is now to the right of the Sun due to the fact that the Earth's forward orbital motion has caused the star to appear as a pre-dawn appearance -

Loading Image...


The Egyptians used an observation that certain stars disappear from view and have a seasonal first appearance and that it presented an annual marker whereby they could begin their year. More importantly they realized that Sirius skips a first annual appearance after the fourth cycle of 365 days and this is the founding jewel of timekeeping -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

This too has been covered multiple times yet it is also included in the disaster that is celestial sphere reckoning which was used inappropriately by Newton in attempting to connect mutual attractions of objects to astronomy.

Now you have had enough of my time and unless your sole purpose is to have an unhealthy interest in my threads, I suggest you go off and do your own research otherwise it is slinging wrong astronomical terms like the rest like many have done over the years. I feel your time is done and that is as much as I can say but unless you lack total integrity do not interfere further.

[Chris.B]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
I feel your time is done and that is as much as I can say but unless you lack total integrity do not interfere further.

Lunatic demands to be put in charge of his private asylum?
Surely not? Who will feed you, hand out your medication and do your laundry?
You already enjoy the [ab]use of far more therapists and tutors than the rest of humanity.
If we give you a token white coat and a name badge, will you be quiet then?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Right, all the noiseboxes, apart from Paul, have had their chance to promote what it is exactly they believe rather than the usual noise directed towards me.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Thanks to Paul for at least trying but now time to move on to deal with this in a way that doesn't require comment. There is a hierarchy here with magnification but these people know enough to stay quiet on their celestial sphere beliefs which are truly awful -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

No need to be sour or dour, with the astronomical event tomorrow marking polar sunrise and sunset due to an orbital surface rotation, the inability to be sentient on that gross misuse of imaging condemns people here without any comment from me.

So, on with the 3 parts of an opinion that serves no purpose in this century or any other.

[Mike Collins]

Post by Gerald Kelleher
You,by your nature, are excluded from all discourse so form your own thread .

Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?
If not:
Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.

[Mike Collins]

Post by Gerald Kelleher

Post by Mike Collins
To show just how eight Newton was you just need to look at Apollo 11.

I am answering any objections in this thread. Apollo 11, washing machines, computers are all engineering sciences much like medical sciences while this is an astronomy/terrestrial science forum where the motions of the Earth and the arrangement of the solar system affects experiences and life on the surface. The idea that the fall of an apples can upscale to planetary orbital motion is through a sequence of precepts outlined in the original presentation in this thread. It is fine saying that objects attract each other but Newton had to apply it to astronomical methods and insights and that is where it disappears in a cloud of slogan chanting, stock phrases, voodoo and bluffing.

Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?
If not:
Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Post by Mike Collins
Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?

I know you can't explain in graphical form how to bind the fall of an apple with planetary motion via the 'universal theory of gravity' in graphical form as Newton presented to you. I am doing in for you and the other dopes who know no better .

"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

[Mike Collins]

Post by Gerald Kelleher

Post by Mike Collins
Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?

I know you can't explain in graphical form how to bind the fall of an apple with planetary motion via the 'universal theory of gravity' in graphical form as Newton presented to you. I am doing in for you and the other dopes who know no better .
"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.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=vnelAd3R&id=586FB8CCB2F321B83CE3CDE6FCA552EE65EDE8AD&thid=OIP.vnelAd3RbfaWFRlDZWiQywEsDe&q=newton%27s+diagram+cannon&simid=608026792260862947&selectedIndex=2

[Gerald Kelleher]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
No, Collins

Post by Mike Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.

You,and this means you, have to use diagrams,graphics or whatever else is at your disposal to render mutual attraction into orbital dynamics, something Newton didn't do nor any of his followers. I know you can't do it and that makes you a walking corpse in terms of astronomy and terrestrial sciences. Stock phrases and slogans don't cut it anymore so get used to it.

[Mike Collins]

Post by Mike Collins
No, Collins

Post by Mike Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.

You,and this means you, have to use diagrams,graphics or whatever else is at your disposal to render mutual attraction into orbital dynamics, something Newton didn't do nor any of his followers. I know you can't do it and that makes you a walking corpse in terms of astronomy and terrestrial sciences. Stock phrases and slogans don't cut it anymore so get used to it.

Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?
If not:
Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.