https://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm

(Just press cancel when requested and the web page appears)

The scheme is idiosyncratic and has little relationship to the insights and methods of the first heliostatic astronomers.

I wouldn't expect theorists to admit that they haven't a clue how it links with the waffle of absolute/relative time, space and motion, however, the two descriptions give a fairly clear view of how solar system research was lost in terms of cause and effect to Earth sciences and solar system and larger structures to linguistic gymnastics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html

Reasonable people are difficult to find, even in matters where observations can be interpreted in a straightforward way and there is little interest in dealing with sycophants who defend what they have little understanding of..

I have every reason to encourage theorists to take the off ramp as they can model as much as they wish with electromagnetism and those features which are lost to 'universal gravity' which is an opinion on attraction without magnetic or electromagnetic attraction.

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:22:51 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have every reason to encourage theorists to take the off ramp as they can model as much as they wish with
> electromagnetism and those features which are lost to 'universal gravity' which is an opinion on attraction
> without magnetic or electromagnetic attraction.

If the Earth had a sufficient electrostatic charge to keep the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, that charge
would cause the constituent parts of the Earth to repel each other with great force. Gravity is attractive
between objects acting in the same manner, while electrostatic attraction requires unlike charges.

And magnetism is strictly a dipole force.

What is the problem with having other forces besides electromagnetism? After all, if it weren't for the
strong nuclear force, the nuclei of atoms wouldn't exist; something needs to overcome the repulsion
between the protons in the nucleus of an atom.

The quote from Newton which you link to is simple enough. Kepler described the Earth's orbit around the
Sun. Jupiter's orbit around the Sun follows the same plan, while if one imagined Jupiter orbited the
Earth, that orbit doesn't. The moons of Jupiter, and the moons of Saturn, orbit their respective primaries
the way Kepler described planetary orbits around the Sun as well.

How this is a bizarre theory that contradicts Kepler escapes me.

John Savard

The first and perhaps the only attempt to look at the solar system structure and the arrangement of planets around the central Sun was from Kepler-

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes... The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them; on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun, and on the moon in the case of the Earth.. On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body, as its spots prove " Kepler

Of course, those who imagine the moon also rotates aside from its orbit of the Earth immediately disqualify themselves from any further consideration..

Kepler's concept has a great deal of merit, not least because it contains the axiom that the closer to the Sun, the faster a planet moves. For solar system structural purposes and planetary orbits, the Sun is stationary and central, however, the larger structure of solar system structure within the umbrella of the galaxy includes the Sun's motion. The more complex picture where the Sun moves in a single direction while the planets partly move in the galactic direction with the Sun and partly in the opposite direction is more likely to be the cause of variations in orbital speeds linking in with the axiom described above.

The complete avoidance of the magnetic signatures for the Earth in terms of orbital dynamics is also dismaying. This is also complex as the field created by the planet's rotation is modified by an orbital signature, by the moon's component or other factors with clues found in plate tectonics and magnetic reversals-

https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/Figures/seaflor2.gif

Considering that there is a wonderful connection between planetary rotation, plate tectonics and the spherical deviation noted by the equatorial and polar diameters through differential rotation, it is unfortunate that people do not feel free to discuss the wider perspectives because of some attraction to a late 17th century mathematical subculture that does not use visual data appropriately and effectively.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:37:07 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> The complete avoidance of the magnetic signatures for the Earth in terms of orbital dynamics is also dismaying.

Immanuel Velikovsky thought so. I remember him saying that the exclusion of
forces other than gravity from orbital dynamics was in danger of turning into
a "dogma" among conventional scientists.

If you _were_ a conventional scientist, able to actually do the numbers, you would
know that the electrostatic and electromagnetic forces possible in the Solar System
are so many orders of magnitude below gravity that it isn't funny.

An exception to that occurs with very small bodies, like artificial satellites. The perturbations
to the orbits of comets, due to radiation pressure from the Sun, as they approach it slowly,
are also taken into account, although often after the fact, as, unlike gravitational factors,
they're not as amenable to being calculated precisely in advance.

Although you seem to be well-educated in the liberal arts sense, being able to
cope with documents in Latin, when it comes to science, you don't seem to really
know anything. But that doesn't stop you from writing posts that can invite
nothing useful, nothing beyond derision.

John Savard

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:37:07 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The complete avoidance of the magnetic signatures for the Earth in terms of orbital dynamics is also dismaying.
>
>Immanuel Velikovsky thought so. I remember him saying that the exclusion of
>forces other than gravity from orbital dynamics was in danger of turning into
>a "dogma" among conventional scientists.

Of course, orbital dynamicists DON'T ignore other forces. In modeling
the evolution of dust in the Solar System, in modeling the motion of
bodies up to at least tens of meters, there are forces other than
gravity that are required to explain their orbits. These are routinely
evaluated.

Which just serves to demonstrate that the scientists who actually work
with this are ignoring nothing. They fully understand the forces
involved. The key point is that they understand where they apply, and
where they are significant factors in orbital analysis.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 3:02:26 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:37:07 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The complete avoidance of the magnetic signatures for the Earth in terms of orbital dynamics is also dismaying.
> >
> >Immanuel Velikovsky thought so. I remember him saying that the exclusion of
> >forces other than gravity from orbital dynamics was in danger of turning into
> >a "dogma" among conventional scientists.
> Of course, orbital dynamicists DON'T ignore other forces. In modeling
> the evolution of dust in the Solar System, in modeling the motion of
> bodies up to at least tens of meters, there are forces other than
> gravity that are required to explain their orbits. These are routinely
> evaluated.
>
> Which just serves to demonstrate that the scientists who actually work
> with this are ignoring nothing. They fully understand the forces
> involved. The key point is that they understand where they apply, and
> where they are significant factors in orbital analysis.

It is 20 years since I originally proposed that differential rotation across latitudes, common to all rotating celestial bodies with compositions in a viscous state, is responsible for both plate tectonics and the spherical deviation -

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.astro.amateur/c/Srr3bU12QDg/m/BA-ud34LAwAJ

In short, people do come to understand something about the relationship between planetary dynamics and their relationship to Earth sciences in terms of cause and effect while at the time you did not. Even when the arguments are clear, theorists still manage to botch the insights as their perceptive faculties are too weak to discuss the issue as serious researchers-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

I was discussing differential rotation in terms of plate tectonics and the spherical deviation long before it was included in the Wiki article where they made a hames of the rotational mechanism and likewise anywhere else opportunities for genuine theorists who can discuss these issue by using visual clues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is perhaps a case noted by Pascal when considering different topics that relate to each other through cause and effect and especially the Earth's dynamics and the Earth sciences of biology, climate and geology -

“It is better to know something about everything then everything about something” ― Blaise Pascal

The problem with theorists following Newton is they haven't a clue how he stitched together his agenda of attempting to make experimental predictions look like astronomical predictions yet followers like yourself have this internal dialogue going to convince yourselves of something that has no basis in solar system research. In the minds of the empirical subculture, Pascal's saying is turned on its head because it is dangerous to something about everything, thereby creating awful narratives with no meaningful relationship to the topic under consideration or the methods and insights of the antecedent solar system researchers.

In any case, this thread is for theorists who genuinely want to pursue productive and creative research by using analogies and imaging properly rather than the wild west subculture of empirical theorists.

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 11:37:07 PM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Of course, those who imagine the moon also rotates aside from its orbit of the Earth immediately disqualify themselves from any further consideration.

I can assure you, Gerald, that if you were to reside on the surface of the moon you would see the Sun rise and set each lunar day... which is proof-positive that the moon rotates with respect to the Sun... what other explanation could there possibly be?

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 9:33:00 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 11:37:07 PM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Of course, those who imagine the moon also rotates aside from its orbit of the Earth
> > immediately disqualify themselves from any further consideration.

> I can assure you, Gerald, that if you were to reside on the surface of the moon you
> would see the Sun rise and set each lunar day... which is proof-positive that the
> moon rotates with respect to the Sun... what other explanation could there possibly be?

He did not say that the Moon doesn't rotate _at all_. He said that it doesn't rotate
*aside from its orbit of the Earth*.

As we know, the Moon does always keep one face turned to the Earth, and we never
knew what the Lunar farside looked like until we sent space probes out there to
take pictures of it.

So does that mean he is right?

Well, we all do know what he is wrong *about*. The Moon orbits the Earth. The
Moon also rotates with the same period - because tidal forces have locked its
rotation to its orbit. *But* the Moon's rotation is regular and uniform, and doesn't
share in the variations in the Moon's orbital motion due to the Moon's orbit being
an *ellipse*.

That is what he misses - the subtle difference between the Moon facing the
Earth in an absolutely fixed way, with its rotation relative to the Sun and the
fixed stars both deriving from its orbit, as he seems to believe - and the Moon
independently rotating on its axis with uniform motion, but with the same
period as its orbit, so that we have *libration*.

So there's no point for you trying to refute what he is right about instead of
what he is wrong about!

John Savard

On 2022-06-14 06:04:22 +0000, Quadibloc said:

> That is what he misses - the subtle difference between the Moon facing the
> Earth in an absolutely fixed way, with its rotation relative to the Sun and the
> fixed stars both deriving from its orbit, as he seems to believe - and the Moon
> independently rotating on its axis with uniform motion, but with the same
> period as its orbit, so that we have *libration*.

It may be hard not notice but Mare Marginalis sometimes is and sometimes
is not vidible to Earth.

Mikko

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 23:04:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 9:33:00 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 11:37:07 PM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > Of course, those who imagine the moon also rotates aside from its orbit of the Earth
>> > immediately disqualify themselves from any further consideration.
>
>> I can assure you, Gerald, that if you were to reside on the surface of the moon you
>> would see the Sun rise and set each lunar day... which is proof-positive that the
>> moon rotates with respect to the Sun... what other explanation could there possibly be?
>
>He did not say that the Moon doesn't rotate _at all_. He said that it doesn't rotate
>*aside from its orbit of the Earth*.

Fundamentally, the Moon orbits the Sun... an orbit which is just
slightly perturbed by the Earth. If the Earth went away, the Moon
would continue in almost exactly the same solar orbit it is currently
following... rotating once every month and orbiting once every year.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 2:13:51 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Fundamentally, the Moon orbits the Sun...rotating once every month and orbiting once every year.

Fundamentally, the moons of Jupiter orbit their parent planet-

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

Fundamentally planets orbit their parent star -

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

I am not throwing good information after an exceptionally silly conclusion and especially as it was covered multiple times in terms of its origins along with the awful notion of direct/retrogrades which is at variance with the recent time lapse footage of Mercury in direct motion and Venus in retrograde motion as the faster moving planets travel back and forth behind and in front of the Sun.

The original thread is for genuine researchers who can anonymously come to understand their own convictions rather than contending with those who have little talent for the main priority of solar system research - to observe, to interpret and to conclude.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 1:41:49 PM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-14 06:04:22 +0000, Quadibloc said:
>
> > That is what he misses - the subtle difference between the Moon facing the
> > Earth in an absolutely fixed way, with its rotation relative to the Sun and the
> > fixed stars both deriving from its orbit, as he seems to believe - and the Moon
> > independently rotating on its axis with uniform motion, but with the same
> > period as its orbit, so that we have *libration*.
> It may be hard not notice but Mare Marginalis sometimes is and sometimes
> is not vidible to Earth.
>
> Mikko

Here is what you do.

Get someone to drive your car around a traffic island where you are standing on the island watching the same side of the car at all times and that is how the moon orbits the Earth each month. If you also believe the moon rotates then good for you, but the moon is actually a round object where some sides of the moon are visible than others as it runs a circuit of the Earth because it isn't a flat object and is really close.

If you are close to being beyond all hope and are a science fantasy addict like many here-

https://miro.medium.com/max/575/1*nUxm5MD_2xO5Y9LorrV8FQ.jpeg

Figure it out yourself.

The thread if for a different audience who can observe, interpret and conclude from those observations.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:53:04 -0700 (PDT), "kellehe...@gmail.com"
<kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 2:13:51 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> Fundamentally, the Moon orbits the Sun...rotating once every month and orbiting once every year.
>
>Fundamentally, the moons of Jupiter orbit their parent planet-
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrBAuLBXag
>
>Fundamentally planets orbit their parent star -
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

The Earth's orbital speed is about 30 km/s, and the Moon's (around the
Earth) is about 1 km/s. If the Earth goes away, the Moon would move
very slightly inwards or outwards, depending where it was in its Earth
orbit when the Earth vanished. It would end in nearly the same solar
orbit it is currently in.

Jupiter's orbital speed is about 13.5 km/s, and Io's (around Jupiter)
is about 17 km/s. If Jupiter goes away, Io could end up anywhere from
a highly eccentric solar orbit with a perigee deep in the inner
system, to being fully ejected from the Solar System (solar escape
velocity at Jupiter is 18.5 km/s).

The Moon is dynamically in orbit around the Sun. Io is dynamically in
orbit around Jupiter.

On 14/06/2022 12.24, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Get someone to drive your car around a traffic island where you are standing on the island watching the same side of the car at all times and that is how the moon orbits the Earth each month. If you also believe the moon rotates then good for you,

Since the car will point in all directions as it goes around
the island, it seems pretty obvious that it's rotating.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 8:53:13 PM UTC+1, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 14/06/2022 12.24, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Get someone to drive your car around a traffic island where you are standing on the island watching the same side of the car at all times and that is how the moon orbits the Earth each month. If you also believe the moon rotates then good for you,
> Since the car will point in all directions as it goes around
> the island, it seems pretty obvious that it's rotating.
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
> <http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
> Please read it before posting.

A car has a front leading side and a rear end and so does the moon. The car has a side that faces the traffic circle and a side that faces away and the observer on the roundabout (Earth) doesn't see.

The title of the thread is not how Sir Isaacc's followers use contrived reasoning to protect themselves, it is helping more perceptive researchers use imaging more productively.

Then there are the science fantasy guys....

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 8:41:10 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> The Earth's orbital speed is about 30 km/s, and the Moon's (around the
> Earth) is about 1 km/s. If the Earth goes away..

I don't deal in hypotheticals and there is no shame if you can't scale up the motions of Jupiter's satellites around the parent planet with the motions of Venus and Mercury around our parent star in a back and forth motion (direct/retrograde motion)-

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

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

Having partitioned direct/retrograde motions depending on whether the planets are moving faster or slower than the Earth, I am offering theorists a way of not being reckless and careless with solar system research and that they, for the first time, use observations and interpretations properly -

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some physical consideration...But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that diversity in physical matters. " Kepler

My testimony far exceeds that of Kepler and even Galileo as the range and degree of imaging is far more superior that those solar system researchers had available to them.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 1:53:13 PM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

> Since the car will point in all directions as it goes around
> the island, it seems pretty obvious that it's rotating.

Yes, but it's not rotating except for its circular path around the center
of the traffic circle; that is its _only_ rotational motion. Which is just what
he has said, so this doesn't contradict him.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:24:35 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Get someone to drive your car around a traffic island where you are standing
> on the island watching the same side of the car at all times and that is how
> the moon orbits the Earth each month. If you also believe the moon rotates
> then good for you, but the moon is actually a round object where some sides
> of the moon are visible than others as it runs a circuit of the Earth because it
> isn't a flat object and is really close.

But there is a difference between that car and the Moon.

The Moon is like a car that's in an uncontrollable spin on an icy road,
but to avoid an accident, the driver is driving it fast enough so that it goes
around the traffic circle once each spin!

Because of that, the car *looks* like it is going around the traffic circle
normally, but the correspondence isn't exact, and the front of the car
does weave a little from side to side compared to the circular path
of the car.

John Savard

Imaging should be the theorist's best friend yet they choose to be moribund in conceptions which insult themselves and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

The constant orientation of the entire surface through an orbit of the Sun indicate a galactic orbital component along with what appears to be a type of magnetic deflection which planets experience through their variations in orbital speeds. This concept is drawn from the fact that the Sun travels in a single direction around the Galactic centre, while the planets move periodically with the Sun in that direction and periodically in the opposite direction. This includes the axiom that planets move faster the closer their orbits are to the Sun.

If being trapped inside a celestial sphere framework (RA/Dec) is a mark of an achievement for theorists, up to and including the no centre/no circumference ideologies of big bang/black hole, then I am sure these folk will continue to enjoy themselves, however, those who begin to move towards the framework where the stars change position as a reflection of the Earth's orbital motion will enter a vastly more creative and productive environment where researchers do not leave observations behind.

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

On 2022-06-14 17:24:33 +0000, kellehe...@gmail.com said:

> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 1:41:49 PM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-06-14 06:04:22 +0000, Quadibloc said:>> > That is what he
>> misses - the subtle difference between the Moon facing the> > Earth in
>> an absolutely fixed way, with its rotation relative to the Sun and the>
>> > fixed stars both deriving from its orbit, as he seems to believe -
>> and the Moon> > independently rotating on its axis with uniform motion,
>> but with the same> > period as its orbit, so that we have *libration*.
>> It may be hard not notice but Mare Marginalis sometimes is and
>> sometimes> is not vidible to Earth.>> Mikko
>
>
> Here is what you do.
>
> Get someone to drive your car around a traffic island where you are
> standing on the island watching the same side of the car at all times
> and that is how the moon orbits the Earth each month. If you also
> believe the moon rotates then good for you, but the moon is actually a
> round object where some sides of the moon are visible than others as it
> runs a circuit of the Earth because it isn't a flat object and is
> really close.
>
> If you are close to being beyond all hope and are a science fantasy
> addict like many here-
>
> https://miro.medium.com/max/575/1*nUxm5MD_2xO5Y9LorrV8FQ.jpeg
>
> Figure it out yourself.
>
> The thread if for a different audience who can observe, interpret and
> conclude from those observations.

Moon as seen from Eath:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8

Mikko

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:08:23 PM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-14 17:24:33 +0000, kellehe...@gmail.com said:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 1:41:49 PM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 2022-06-14 06:04:22 +0000, Quadibloc said:>> > That is what he
> >> misses - the subtle difference between the Moon facing the> > Earth in
> >> an absolutely fixed way, with its rotation relative to the Sun and the>
> >> > fixed stars both deriving from its orbit, as he seems to believe -
> >> and the Moon> > independently rotating on its axis with uniform motion,
> >> but with the same> > period as its orbit, so that we have *libration*.
> >> It may be hard not notice but Mare Marginalis sometimes is and
> >> sometimes> is not vidible to Earth.>> Mikko
> >
> >
> > Here is what you do.
> >
> > Get someone to drive your car around a traffic island where you are
> > standing on the island watching the same side of the car at all times
> > and that is how the moon orbits the Earth each month. If you also
> > believe the moon rotates then good for you, but the moon is actually a
> > round object where some sides of the moon are visible than others as it
> > runs a circuit of the Earth because it isn't a flat object and is
> > really close.
> >
> > If you are close to being beyond all hope and are a science fantasy
> > addict like many here-
> >
> > https://miro.medium.com/max/575/1*nUxm5MD_2xO5Y9LorrV8FQ.jpeg
> >
> > Figure it out yourself.
> >
> > The thread if for a different audience who can observe, interpret and
> > conclude from those observations.
> Moon as seen from Eath:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
>
> Mikko

The moon's dark/light hemispheres and its divisor are coincident with that of the Earth and always at right angles to the orbital plane and the central Sun -

https://media.wired.com/photos/593310ec26780e6c04d2e429/master/pass/earthmoon_near_big.jpg

Seen from the moon, the Earth's North/South poles turn parallel to the orbital plane and therefore the divisor is at right angles to that orbital plane. Variations in phase orientations of the moon is a combination of our rotational/orbital characteristics along with the fact that the moon is not flat and is fairly close as an object.

The analogy of the car on a traffic roundabout is sufficient to scale up to the moon's monthly circuit of the Earth where we see the same side of the car with minor variations in how we see the front and the rear (libration) as a car also is not a flat object. We do not see the far side of the moon for the same analogical reasons.

This thread originates in orbital like for like and minus daily rotational influences while theorists operate out of RA/Dec which attempts to gauge orbital characteristics through daily rotational characteristics (clockwork solar system).