I am in a position to admire the works of Copernicus is particular and to a lesser degree Kepler from a better position insofar as neither could resolve the direct/retrograde motions of the faster moving Venus and Mercury as seen from a slower moving Earth or, in this case, a satellite tracking with the Earth around the Sun-

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

That is the slower moving Mercury passing from right to left behind the Sun as a stationary reference in what was originally called direct motion.

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

That is Venus (in retrograde motion) passing between the slower moving Earth with the central Sun as a stationary reference, thereby requiring two different perspectives for direct/retrogrades and depending on whether the Earth is moving faster or slower than the observed planets. This is what it means to do solar system research, acknowledging the contributions of former researchers like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler while recognising the observational limitations they were under.

In the scheme from Sir Isaac to early 20th century relativity serves nobody, not even experimental theorists but people seem happy enough with the contrived wordplays nonetheless.

kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip garbage]

> In the scheme from Sir Isaac to early 20th century relativity serves nobody, not even experimental theorists but people seem happy enough with the contrived wordplays nonetheless.

Explaining Mercury perihelion precession is certainly "serving" people
studying solar systems, isn't it?

You're a troll right? You're not even trying to make sense, it's joke,
quite a bad one, there are already people of your kind posting here.

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 8:51:19 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:
> kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [snip garbage]
> > In the scheme from Sir Isaac to early 20th century relativity serves nobody, not even experimental theorists but people seem happy enough with the contrived wordplays nonetheless.
> Explaining Mercury perihelion precession is certainly "serving" people
> studying solar systems, isn't it?
>
> You're a troll right? You're not even trying to make sense, it's joke,
> quite a bad one, there are already people of your kind posting here.

Explaining the direct/retrograde motions of the faster moving Venus and Mercury using the Sun as the stationary/central reference is on a different order and hasn't been done since Copernicus first explained the direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets properly-

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

" Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus ." Galileo

The direct/retrogrades of Mercury and Venus are explained differently as that requires a new framework where the left to right change in the position of the stars sets the Sun up as a central reference for relative motions between our planet to the stationary Sun and to the back and forth motions of Venus and Mercury in faster and smaller circuits-

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

It isn't so much dismantling the experimental method as it applies to solar system research, although that happens anyway, it is to give even experimental theorists something new to look at instead of annoying everyone with voodoo and bluffing of the late 17th century icon.

kellehe...@gmail.com <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

[another monologue]
> In the scheme from Sir Isaac to early 20th century relativity serves
> nobody, not even experimental theorists but people seem happy enough with
> the contrived wordplays nonetheless.

You are quite wrong in that.
With the accuracy to which motions in the solar system
can be tracked and predicted nowadays
(order 10^-9 to 10-11 depending on what you track/predict)
relativistic corrections are everywhere.

Jan

On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 23:21:16 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> kellehe...@gmail.com <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [another monologue]
> > In the scheme from Sir Isaac to early 20th century relativity serves
> > nobody, not even experimental theorists but people seem happy enough with
> > the contrived wordplays nonetheless.
> You are quite wrong in that.
> With the accuracy to which motions in the solar system
> can be tracked and predicted nowadays
> (order 10^-9 to 10-11 depending on what you track/predict)
> relativistic corrections are everywhere.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. Those
"relativistic" corrections are forbidden by all means
your Shit was able to forbid them.

On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 21:51:19 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [snip garbage]
> > In the scheme from Sir Isaac to early 20th century relativity serves nobody, not even experimental theorists but people seem happy enough with the contrived wordplays nonetheless.
> Explaining Mercury perihelion precession is certainly "serving" people

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:34:43 PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> kellehe...@gmail.com <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:34:02 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > kellehe...@gmail.com <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html
> > > May I recommend Ernst Mach for your attention? (also late 19th)
> > > Mach set out to rid physics of unnecessary philosophising.
> > > He demonstrated clearly and convincingly that Newton's
> > > absolute space and time have no physical content.
> >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Ah, but you see, the Equation of Time is a timekeeping facility that
> > equalises the variations in the length of time for each natural noon cycle
> > to a 24 hour average.
> You can say that, but that is making too much of it.
> It is merely the difference between time as shown by a sundial
> and time as shown by a mechanical device.

The Equation of Time (timekeeping facility) makes the 24 hour clock and therefore the equable hour, minute and second possible, therefore represents one of the great human achievements despite its misuse by those who know no better. I wouldn't bother with Sir Isaac's description of the EoT as absolute/relative time so anyone who makes a song and dance about time, relative or otherwise, should really dwell on genuine timekeeping and how the systems developed over thousands of years.

Under normal circumstances, nobody would mistake timekeeping for time itself, but it happened and you fine folk are a result of that misadventure.

The only outstanding question, at least in this matter, is what the equable hour, minute and second refer to as terms within the 24 hour cycle.

kellehe...@gmail.com <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:34:43 PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > kellehe...@gmail.com <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:34:02 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > kellehe...@gmail.com <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html
> > > > May I recommend Ernst Mach for your attention? (also late 19th)
> > > > Mach set out to rid physics of unnecessary philosophising.
> > > > He demonstrated clearly and convincingly that Newton's
> > > > absolute space and time have no physical content.
> > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Ah, but you see, the Equation of Time is a timekeeping facility that
> > > equalises the variations in the length of time for each natural noon cycle
> > > to a 24 hour average.
> > You can say that, but that is making too much of it.
> > It is merely the difference between time as shown by a sundial
> > and time as shown by a mechanical device.
>
> The Equation of Time (timekeeping facility) makes the 24 hour clock and
> therefore the equable hour, minute and second possible, therefore
> represents one of the great human achievements despite its misuse by those
> who know no better.

It has nothing to do with clocks, in principle.
The ancient Babylonians knew about it already,
and Ptolemy had epicycles for it. [1]

It became a matter of practical importance
after mechanical clocks were invented.
These were not very stable in thelong term,
and they needed to be set to the right time regularly.
A sundial with a table for the equation of time
was one of the means to accomplish this.
Other means were used too.
Those living in London could watch the Greenwich observatory.
In other towns there often were noon guns. (Cape Town still has one)

> I wouldn't bother with Sir Isaac's description of the
> EoT as absolute/relative time so anyone who makes a song and dance about
> time, relative or otherwise, should really dwell on genuine timekeeping
> and how the systems developed over thousands of years.

It was well understood, it could easily be computed,
and it was and is completely irrelevant for Newtonian mechanics.

Jan

In ancient times the equation of time was utterly irrelevant
for everyday life.
It was important for astrologers though,
because time of birth was recorded in true solar time,
while the motions of the planets as observed were referred to the stars.

kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> The only outstanding question, at least in this matter, is what the
> equable hour, minute and second refer to as terms within the 24 hour
> cycle.

It makes no sense. Those are called *units* and are irrelevant the one you
use. You can use any. But here we go.

Ukraine Massacres Civilians in Bucha Then Blames it on Russia - Video
Explanation https://www.brighteon.com/55526b12-17ad-46f3-95d8-33e24857ab61

Russian troops storm Mariupol steel plant used as base by Ukrainian
battalions https://www.brighteon.com/cfae246b-f5b8-49f2-97e4-60298e8bde93

The GPS and Lat/Long system are an extension of the average 24 hour day derived from the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle and where the 24 hour clock noon follows natural noon closely. If a sand or water clock is used, each cycle will generate a different amount from the previous cycle. What the EoT effectively does is gather together different amounts together and then divides those amount equally corresponding to the 24 hour average and subsequently equable hours, minutes and seconds.

Royal Society airheads in the late 17th century decided to shift rotation away from the central Sun and tried to justify rotation using the 24 hour clock along with the daily change in the position of the stars-

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

They then assigned a 23 hour 56 minute value and concluded there are more rotations than there are 24 hour day/night cycles-

" 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 days in the year" NASA /Harvard

It is so much fun dismantling Royal Society empiricism and its misadventure with timekeeping. I salute those who continue to tie themselves in knots over timekeeping and especially on account of careless people 350+ years ago..