On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > .A necessary qualification
> >
> > * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
> The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
> isn't the correct unit to use.
>
> Pt

Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro..amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:01:38 AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > > .A necessary qualification
> > >
> > > * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
> > The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
> > isn't the correct unit to use.
> >
> > Pt
> Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro.amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.

So, you are unable to articulate your objections, and seem to be resorting to the
Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Fail.

pt

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:57:34 PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:01:38 AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > > > .A necessary qualification
> > > >
> > > > * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
> > > The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
> > > isn't the correct unit to use.
> > >
> > > Pt
> > Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro.amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.
> So, you are unable to articulate your objections, and seem to be resorting to the
> Appeal to Authority fallacy.
>
> Fail.
>
> pt

Science fantasy only works when people are under no pretence that it is anything other than fantasy, however, science fiction is an extension of the scientific method as a subculture. For the slow learner, people like to go to the movies and enjoy science fantasy but they don't want to live there, yet unfortunately, the education system supports a lot of fiction.

The rotational velocity at the North Pole is zero as velocity diminishes across latitude from a maximum velocity of 1037.5 mph at the Equator.

In any case, a few days ago you all believed the Sun tracks in one direction and now you know it tracks in opposite directions depending on what polar latitude the observer is standing on.

On Tue, 9 May 2023 15:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Tony Nance
<tonynance17@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:30:22?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 9:46:45?PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:29:50?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 9:50:41?PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> > > > Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
>> > > > https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02
>> > > >
>> > > > Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see The
>> > > > Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>> > > >
>> > > > Lynn
>> > > You have to appreciate science before you get involved in science fantasy. This newsgroup is far more active than sci.astro.amateur where I operate in and occasionally it is visited by contributors from this forum who make nuisances of themselves as they lack the perceptive abilities with even basic observations.
>> > >
>> > > The Sun tracks in opposite directions at the North and South poles-
>> > >
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>> > >
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCCSegL8ic
>> > >
>> > > Now learn some science.
>> > My goodness, the condescension is strong in this one.
>> >
>> > It depends on your frame of reference. The sun moves across the Earth
>> > in the same direction everywhere on the planet - after all, the Earth is a solid body.
>> >
>> > However, at the north pole, in summer, it goes around an observer
>> > clockwise, and at the south pole in summer, anticlockwise. This is because
>> > the observer is flipped over.
>> >
>> > pt
>> The North and South poles don't rotate as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
>>
>> The North and South poles do rotate relative to the central Sun as a function of the planet's orbital motion hence one sunrise at the North/South pole on one Equinox and one sunset on the opposite Equinox with 6 months where the Sun is continuously in view.
>>
>> I like science fantasy in movies and whatnot, however, I like science more and unfortunately, none of you can tell the difference.
>
>Re: "none of you"
>Blanket assertion. Sloppy reasoning. One could wonder why you wish to
>bait (some?) participants here. Unless you were serious, in which case,
>one could reasonably wonder how much you understand science.

Probably quite well.

A teeny-tiny bit of science anyway.

Which this discussion impinges on.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:57:34 PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:01:38 AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > > > > .A necessary qualification
> > > > >
> > > > > * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
> > > > The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
> > > > isn't the correct unit to use.
> > > >
> > > > Pt
> > > Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci..astro.amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.
> > So, you are unable to articulate your objections, and seem to be resorting to the
> > Appeal to Authority fallacy.
> >
> > Fail.
> >
> > pt
> Science fantasy only works when people are under no pretence that it is anything other than fantasy, however, science fiction is an extension of the scientific method as a subculture. For the slow learner, people like to go to the movies and enjoy science fantasy but they don't want to live there, yet unfortunately, the education system supports a lot of fiction.
>
> The rotational velocity at the North Pole is zero as velocity diminishes across latitude from a maximum velocity of 1037.5 mph at the Equator.
>
> In any case, a few days ago you all believed the Sun tracks in one direction and now you know it tracks in opposite directions depending on what polar latitude the observer is standing on.

I think we're arguing with a person who will recast terminology to suit his argument.
There's simply no reason to continue.

pt

I like science fantasy, at least up to a point, however, people who can't handle basic planetary facts are and always will be boring. Although it isn't a crime, solar system and Earth science research should be far more exciting than things like time travel which originated in a science fantasy novel in the 19th century based on the empirical misadventure with timekeeping-

"Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells (1866–1946). The Time Machine. 1898.

I believe they conjured up a formal version of the science fantasy novel as early 20th-century relativity.

On Wed, 10 May 2023 14:54:00 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 11:03:20?AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:57:34?PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:01:38?AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:44:15?AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> > > > > .A necessary qualification
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
>> > > > The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
>> > > > isn't the correct unit to use.
>> > > >
>> > > > Pt
>> > > Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro.amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.
>> > So, you are unable to articulate your objections, and seem to be resorting to the
>> > Appeal to Authority fallacy.
>> >
>> > Fail.
>> >
>> > pt
>> Science fantasy only works when people are under no pretence that it is anything other than fantasy, however, science fiction is an extension of the scientific method as a subculture. For the slow learner, people like to go to the movies and enjoy science fantasy but they don't want to live there, yet unfortunately, the education system supports a lot of fiction.
>>
>> The rotational velocity at the North Pole is zero as velocity diminishes across latitude from a maximum velocity of 1037.5 mph at the Equator.
>>
>> In any case, a few days ago you all believed the Sun tracks in one direction and now you know it tracks in opposite directions depending on what polar latitude the observer is standing on.
>
>I think we're arguing with a person who will recast terminology to suit his argument.
>There's simply no reason to continue.

Such as his attempt to restrict "science fiction" to /hard/ SF, while
renaming all other forms of SF as "science fantasy".

See, this is what happens when you try to merge two genres (SF,
Fantasy) into one (Speculative Fiction) -- semanitc goo.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.

In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.

The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.

Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.

Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
shot.

> In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.
>
> The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.

Ahhh - now we see why you're posting here. You're getting laughed at by actual scientists,
for not understanding how polar inclination works.

> Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.

Its weird. I recall another poster, I think at least 15 years ago, who had a similar obsession.
with the Earth's rotation vis-a-vis its travel around the sun. He had a blindness to the
issue of frame of reference, counting rotations as passages of the sun overhead, vs counting as
passages of a distant star overhead.

Anyone else remember that guy?

We also had, much more recently, an Eastern European "astrophysicist" who tried to sell us
demonstrably incorrect interpretations of data from the DART mission. He didn't understand
the kinetics of impacts.

pt

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:13:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
>
> In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.
>
> The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.
>
> Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.

Based on that and your comment on relativity you wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:45:30 PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
> Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
> is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
> shot.
> > In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
> >
> > When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.
> >
> > The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.
> Ahhh - now we see why you're posting here. You're getting laughed at by actual scientists,
> for not understanding how polar inclination works.
> > Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.
> Its weird. I recall another poster, I think at least 15 years ago, who had a similar obsession.
> with the Earth's rotation vis-a-vis its travel around the sun. He had a blindness to the
> issue of frame of reference, counting rotations as passages of the sun overhead, vs counting as
> passages of a distant star overhead.
>
> Anyone else remember that guy?
>
> We also had, much more recently, an Eastern European "astrophysicist" who tried to sell us
> demonstrably incorrect interpretations of data from the DART mission. He didn't understand
> the kinetics of impacts.
>
> pt

This is why, in terms of human understanding and perception, the best I can do for you is that you are boring and mediocre as a group rather than creative individuals in literature. It has always been that way.

The blindness belongs to people who can't manage to associate one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with one rotation of the Earth because they follow the dictates of a late 17th-century subculture.

" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

The fun goes out of science fantasy as the science fiction above has no basis in scientific fact even though it is the basis of the clockwork solar system or RA/Dec modelling as it is called.

If it is any help, there would be no enjoyment of science fantasy coming from an author who believed in a flat Earth so likewise you and your colleagues in terms of a solar/sidereal contrivance. Keep up the good work complaining about my grammar, sentence structure and spelling as that is the level I would expect from contributors here.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:35:15 PM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>
> This is why, in terms of human understanding and perception, the best I can do for you is that you are boring and mediocre as a group rather than creative individuals in literature. It has always been that way.
>
> The blindness belongs to people who can't manage to associate one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with one rotation of the Earth because they follow the dictates of a late 17th-century subculture.
>
> " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard
>
> The fun goes out of science fantasy as the science fiction above has no basis in scientific fact even though it is the basis of the clockwork solar system or RA/Dec modelling as it is called.
>
> If it is any help, there would be no enjoyment of science fantasy coming from an author who believed in a flat Earth so likewise you and your colleagues in terms of a solar/sidereal contrivance. Keep up the good work complaining about my grammar, sentence structure and spelling as that is the level I would expect from contributors here.

If you don't like it here feel free to fuck off

On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
>
>Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
>is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
>shot.

Both sentences, I presume.

I have /no/ idea what the second one is going on about. It soulds
similar to my occasionally-felt need to point out that Copernicus did
/not/ invent heliocentrism, as many appear to believe, but that the
Ancient Greeks were well aware that theory. Indeed, I once read an
essay (I suppose that is the term) relating Ptolemy to Copernicus that
pointed out that Plato's demiurge appears to have created a
helicentric system whose planets had orbits whose ratios were not that
far off from the first five (or six, if they were aware of Saturn) of
ours.

So far as I can tell, what Newton did was present his theory of
gravity as the mysterious force posited by Kepler to keep the planets
on elliptical orbits.

>> In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>>
>> When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.
>>
>> The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.
>
>Ahhh - now we see why you're posting here. You're getting laughed at by actual scientists,
>for not understanding how polar inclination works.
>
>> Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.
>
>Its weird. I recall another poster, I think at least 15 years ago, who had a similar obsession.
>with the Earth's rotation vis-a-vis its travel around the sun. He had a blindness to the
>issue of frame of reference, counting rotations as passages of the sun overhead, vs counting as
>passages of a distant star overhead.

IIRC, even Ptolemy could distinguish sidereal time from solar time.

>Anyone else remember that guy?

I think that was before my time here.

>We also had, much more recently, an Eastern European "astrophysicist" who tried to sell us
>demonstrably incorrect interpretations of data from the DART mission. He didn't understand
>the kinetics of impacts.

Him I remember.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

It is a combination of horror and science-fantasy genres where mindless zombies come at me with the inability to associate one rotation of the Earth with one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours. Always biting because they cannot distinguish time from timekeeping and how the systems we use today were put together, the calendar system in antiquity and the 24-hour cycle more recently with the emergence of accurate clocks.

All the growling from adherents of the zombie subculture doesn't affect those who haven't lost the ability to use their reasoning and perceptive faculties so although the majority of humanity is presently lost to a mathematical misadventure with timekeeping and distortions visited on the heritage of astronomy, the zombie mindlessness is not a permanent condition and can be cured.

I wish it was fiction, I truly do, however, it is quite real as this thread affirms.

(The flat Earth people can type sentences just as the solar/sidereal people but intellectual pretence is also the common denominator with both.)

So growl away.

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:11:55 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> >> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
> >
> >Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here.. However, since this
> >is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
> >shot.
> Both sentences, I presume.
>
> I have /no/ idea what the second one is going on about. It sounds
> similar to my occasionally-felt need to point out that Copernicus did
> /not/ invent heliocentrism, as many appear to believe, but that the
> Ancient Greeks were well aware that theory. Indeed, I once read an
> essay (I suppose that is the term) relating Ptolemy to Copernicus that
> pointed out that Plato's demiurge appears to have created a
> helicentric system whose planets had orbits whose ratios were not that
> far off from the first five (or six, if they were aware of Saturn) of
> ours.

You can see Saturn.

I'm currently having a couple of arguments with someone
on Quora in this area. One of his thoughts is that the
Earth's orbit can't be an ellipse because the tropics
don't have seasons as we understand them. Another is
that heliocentrism was really invented by Muslim astronomer
Ibn al-Shatir.

Oddly, I can't type "Ibn al-Shatir" correctly, so maybe my
computer is in the conspiracy if I'm not. What I think he
and Copernicus achieved, separately or not, is a revision
of Ptolemy's universe with epicycles on epicycles, to
something that mathematically corresponds with the
Earth and other planets moving in circles or ellipses
around the Sun. I say "mathematically" because most
commentaries, who may be quoting from each other,
insist that Ibn al-Shatir never claimed that Earth really
moves in that way. The actual work is beyond me,
but I think the position is that both Ibn al-Shatir and
Copernicus produced a "better" geocentric mathematical
model, but only Copernicus went further and substituted
a heliocentric model, although IIRC he still used circular
orbits.

I give less credit to the ancient Greeks because you can
find an ancient Greek philosopher who believed anything
at all or was alleged to, because they probably didn't do
the math, and because heliocentrists didn't win the argument
at the time. Ibn al-Shatir's system was overlooked too.
Huh, he just turned in front of my eyes into "Ibn al-Shakir".

Actual science is enjoyable.

Copernicus accounted for the slower-moving planets further from the Sun than the faster-moving Earth as they fall behind in view as the Earth overtakes them-

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

Because Copernicus and his contemporaries were chained to the stationary field of background constellations of Ptolemy as a framework, they were obligated to assert a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system as a hypothesis even though it now makes so much sense with 21st-century imaging.

A decade ago I worked out that the faster-moving Venus and Mercury needed an entirely different framework to account for their back-and-forth (direct/retrograde) motions around our parent star -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

It amounts to a scaled-up version of Jupiter's satellites as they run back and forth around their parent planet-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrBAuLBXag

The Earth's orbital motion is accounted for by the annual change in the position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane so it sets up the Sun as a central reference for the motions of Venus and Mercury-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

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

Think any one of you can handle the visual narrative?.

I personally think I am wasting my time here but wish the contributors here would stay away from the sci.astro.amateur newsgroup and stop demobbing creative and productive contributions.

On Sat, 13 May 2023 03:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:11:55 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> >> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
>> >
>> >Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
>> >is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
>> >shot.
>> Both sentences, I presume.
>>
>> I have /no/ idea what the second one is going on about. It sounds
>> similar to my occasionally-felt need to point out that Copernicus did
>> /not/ invent heliocentrism, as many appear to believe, but that the
>> Ancient Greeks were well aware that theory. Indeed, I once read an
>> essay (I suppose that is the term) relating Ptolemy to Copernicus that
>> pointed out that Plato's demiurge appears to have created a
>> helicentric system whose planets had orbits whose ratios were not that
>> far off from the first five (or six, if they were aware of Saturn) of
>> ours.
>
>You can see Saturn.
>
>I'm currently having a couple of arguments with someone
>on Quora in this area. One of his thoughts is that the
>Earth's orbit can't be an ellipse because the tropics
>don't have seasons as we understand them. Another is
>that heliocentrism was really invented by Muslim astronomer
>Ibn al-Shatir.

Well, here's an article on him:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir]. And
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir#Possible_influence_on_Nicolaus_Copernicus]
discusses similarities to Copernicus.

>Oddly, I can't type "Ibn al-Shatir" correctly, so maybe my
>computer is in the conspiracy if I'm not. What I think he
>and Copernicus achieved, separately or not, is a revision
>of Ptolemy's universe with epicycles on epicycles, to
>something that mathematically corresponds with the
>Earth and other planets moving in circles or ellipses
>around the Sun. I say "mathematically" because most
>commentaries, who may be quoting from each other,
>insist that Ibn al-Shatir never claimed that Earth really
>moves in that way. The actual work is beyond me,
>but I think the position is that both Ibn al-Shatir and
>Copernicus produced a "better" geocentric mathematical
>model, but only Copernicus went further and substituted
>a heliocentric model, although IIRC he still used circular
>orbits.

This is very confused and, frankly, it has been quite some time since
I read Copernicus, and still longer since Ptolemy. There are a lot of
works in the set /Great Books of the Western World/ chronologically
between the two.

Ptolemy was attempting to reconcile Aristotle's insistence that the
planets moved in circles (because only linear and circular motion
could go on forever) with reality. The purpose off all those circles
was to show how the planets, while moving eternally on circles,
nonetheless appeared to be doing no such thing.

Kind of like phlogiston. Or, for that matter, dark matter/dark energy.
You /know/ a theory is in trouble when it is necessary to invent new
and unobservable phenomena to "save the appearances".

As to Copernicus, there was no "or ellipses", except, of course, in
the sense that a circle is a degenerate ellipse. (Note that this use
of "degenerate" is mathematical and not a comment on the morality of
circles.) By putting the Sun at the center, he eliminated /its/
circles, gifted the Earth with circles, and replaced one circle in
each of the other planets with the main circle of the Earth. The moon,
since it actually /does/ go around the Earth, stayed much the same,
although a moving Earth may have required a few adjustments.

>I give less credit to the ancient Greeks because you can
>find an ancient Greek philosopher who believed anything
>at all or was alleged to, because they probably didn't do
>the math, and because heliocentrists didn't win the argument
>at the time. Ibn al-Shatir's system was overlooked too.
>Huh, he just turned in front of my eyes into "Ibn al-Shakir".

The only "Ancient Greek" that mattered for a long long time to
many/most people was Aristotle. And /he/ insisted that the Earth was
the center of the World. And that no other Worlds could exist, as the
elements that moved (by nature) to the center of the Earth would move
to the center of /our/ Earth, preventing the formation of any other
World.

Nonetheless, Plato's Demiurge can be portrayed as building a
heliocentric system of planets with orbits having ratios similar to
ours. Like atomism, heliocentrism was a part of Greek philosophy, but
not of Aristotle. Copernicus could have been familiar with these
alternates to Aristotle.

Bing is smart enough to match "ibn al-shakir" to "ibn al-shatir", BTW.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 13 May 2023 09:10:50 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 May 2023 03:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:11:55 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>>> >> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
>>> >
>>> >Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
>>> >is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
>>> >shot.
>>> Both sentences, I presume.
>>>
>>> I have /no/ idea what the second one is going on about. It sounds
>>> similar to my occasionally-felt need to point out that Copernicus did
>>> /not/ invent heliocentrism, as many appear to believe, but that the
>>> Ancient Greeks were well aware that theory. Indeed, I once read an
>>> essay (I suppose that is the term) relating Ptolemy to Copernicus that
>>> pointed out that Plato's demiurge appears to have created a
>>> helicentric system whose planets had orbits whose ratios were not that
>>> far off from the first five (or six, if they were aware of Saturn) of
>>> ours.
>>
>>You can see Saturn.
>>
>>I'm currently having a couple of arguments with someone
>>on Quora in this area. One of his thoughts is that the
>>Earth's orbit can't be an ellipse because the tropics
>>don't have seasons as we understand them. Another is
>>that heliocentrism was really invented by Muslim astronomer
>>Ibn al-Shatir.
>
>Well, here's an article on him:
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir]. And
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir#Possible_influence_on_Nicolaus_Copernicus]
>discusses similarities to Copernicus.
>
>>Oddly, I can't type "Ibn al-Shatir" correctly, so maybe my
>>computer is in the conspiracy if I'm not. What I think he
>>and Copernicus achieved, separately or not, is a revision
>>of Ptolemy's universe with epicycles on epicycles, to
>>something that mathematically corresponds with the
>>Earth and other planets moving in circles or ellipses
>>around the Sun. I say "mathematically" because most
>>commentaries, who may be quoting from each other,
>>insist that Ibn al-Shatir never claimed that Earth really
>>moves in that way. The actual work is beyond me,
>>but I think the position is that both Ibn al-Shatir and
>>Copernicus produced a "better" geocentric mathematical
>>model, but only Copernicus went further and substituted
>>a heliocentric model, although IIRC he still used circular
>>orbits.
>
>This is very confused and, frankly, it has been quite some time since
>I read Copernicus, and still longer since Ptolemy. There are a lot of
>works in the set /Great Books of the Western World/ chronologically
>between the two.
>
>Ptolemy was attempting to reconcile Aristotle's insistence that the
>planets moved in circles (because only linear and circular motion
>could go on forever) with reality. The purpose off all those circles
>was to show how the planets, while moving eternally on circles,
>nonetheless appeared to be doing no such thing.
>
>Kind of like phlogiston. Or, for that matter, dark matter/dark energy.
>You /know/ a theory is in trouble when it is necessary to invent new
>and unobservable phenomena to "save the appearances".
>
>As to Copernicus, there was no "or ellipses", except, of course, in
>the sense that a circle is a degenerate ellipse. (Note that this use
>of "degenerate" is mathematical and not a comment on the morality of
>circles.) By putting the Sun at the center, he eliminated /its/
>circles, gifted the Earth with circles, and replaced one circle in
>each of the other planets with the main circle of the Earth. The moon,
>since it actually /does/ go around the Earth, stayed much the same,
>although a moving Earth may have required a few adjustments.
>
>>I give less credit to the ancient Greeks because you can
>>find an ancient Greek philosopher who believed anything
>>at all or was alleged to, because they probably didn't do
>>the math, and because heliocentrists didn't win the argument
>>at the time. Ibn al-Shatir's system was overlooked too.
>>Huh, he just turned in front of my eyes into "Ibn al-Shakir".
>
>The only "Ancient Greek" that mattered for a long long time to
>many/most people was Aristotle. And /he/ insisted that the Earth was
>the center of the World. And that no other Worlds could exist, as the
>elements that moved (by nature) to the center of the Earth would move
>to the center of /our/ Earth, preventing the formation of any other
>World.
>
>Nonetheless, Plato's Demiurge can be portrayed as building a
>heliocentric system of planets with orbits having ratios similar to
>ours. Like atomism, heliocentrism was a part of Greek philosophy, but
>not of Aristotle. Copernicus could have been familiar with these
>alternates to Aristotle.
>
>Bing is smart enough to match "ibn al-shakir" to "ibn al-shatir", BTW.

Also, Muslim culture preserved a great many Greek texts [1], so Ibn
Al-Shatir may well have been familiar with heliocentric philosophy as
well.

[1] Indeed the very /name/ used for Ptolemy's work ("Almagest") is an
amalgam of the Arablic article "Al" and a transliteration of the Greek
"magiste", "greatest") [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest#Names].
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8

On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.

Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:56:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8
>
> On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-
>
> https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/
>
> The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.

WTF is denying that the earth orbits the sun?
>
> Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

On 16/05/23 15:56, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:56:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.

Hah! A treasure trove of SF book recommendations must be coming from
Gerald Kelleher who has previously described everyone in this group as
brainless but now wishes to share his expertise on what creative and
productive subscribers to sf.WRITTEN would like.
(Where is Jibini? He is needed.)

>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8
>>
>> On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-
>>
>> https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

I didn't bother going to those websites to passively watch videos
because I am too busy being creative and productive.

>>
>> The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.
>
> WTF is denying that the earth orbits the sun?

Certainly not the renown astrologer, Gee Kelleher, (who was born
Kellehim but had his private parts surgically removed after a fall on
his head causing him to see stars (and planets).)

>>
>> Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

Will there be a test on this later? (Where is Jibini?)

>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:56:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

>>> Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

Later on I have to go to the WGM (Weekly General Meeting) which is also
a RTN (Required Training Night) of the APTCPARW (Association of
Professional Traffic Cone Positioners at Accidents and Road Works) and
ask your permission to read that out under GB (General Business) or if
it is copyright or forbidden under your AC (Astrologer's Code) to be
spoken in semi public by someone without a PhD (Probable head Damage).

Titus G wrote:

>I didn't bother going to those websites to passively watch videos
>because I am too busy being creative and productive.

Arguing on RASFW with an idiot is a pretty strong counter-argument to
that.

Brian (who doesn't even need to pretend to be productive these days)

The solar/sidereal people (look in the mirror) are the same as the flat Earth people as they are the joke themselves. Intelligent people can be funny, lighthearted, creative or have any other positive trait but people who can't associate one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with one rotation of the Earth have nothing going for them. It isn't an insult but as certain as the Sun tracks in one direction at the North Pole and the opposite direction at the South, something which can't be appreciated among the daft who have a locked-in mentality-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#/media/File:Sidereal_time.svg

People can believe whatever they want, however, the entire basis of RA/Dec modelling beginning with Isaac Newton is based on that clockwork solar system framework so science fiction becomes a horror narrative for humanity.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8
>
> On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-
>
> https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/
>
> The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.
>
> Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.