In the Commentariolus, Copernicus attributed a third motion to the Earth-

_"The third movement is the declination movement. For the axis of daily rotation is not parallel to the axis of the great circle but is inclined to it by such a part of the circumference, which in our time is almost 23 and a half degrees. Thus the centre of the Earth always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, i.e. on the circumference of a great circle, and its poles revolve, drawing small circles on both sides around the centres equidistant from the axis of the great circle. This movement, too, takes place over a period of almost a year and is almost equal to the revolution of the great wheel" Copernicus, Commentariolus.

https://copernicus.torun.pl/zasoby/archiwum/pisma-tablice-i-noty-astronomiczne/komentarzyk-commentariolus

As the Precession of the Equinoxes within the Ptolemaic framework created the roughly 1-degree variation every 72 years, he needed to alter his views by the time he wrote De Revolutionibus by assigning axial precession to account for that Ptolemaic feature. The Precession of the Equinoxes can be accounted for differently as an extension of the system of reckoning that creates the 365/366-day calendar framework.

It is evident that the planet does not complete 1461 rotations in 4 years, covering the entire calendar framework from March 1st to Feb 29th four years later. The foundations of timekeeping, unknown to Copernicus and Galileo, are based on the heliacal rising of Sirius and that it skips a first annual appearance by one day after the fourth 365-day cycle-

".. 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 five days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every four years added to the five epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC.

The third motion, which Copernicus attributed to the Earth's surface in his original Commentariolus description, is close to being correct but requires several significant additions. Galileo sought to disprove the third motion by other means-

"From what I see, did not understand very well- was a certain experiment which I exhibited to some gentlemen there at Rome, and perhaps at the very house of Your Excellency, in partial explanation and partial refutation of the "third motion"[14] attributed by Copernicus to the earth. This extra rotation, opposite in direction to all other celestial motions, appeared to many a most improbable thing,and one that upset the whole Copernican system. . . . What I said was designed to remove a difficulty attributed to the Copernican system, and I later added that anyone who would reflect upon the matter more carefully would see that Copernicus had spoken falsely when he attributed his "third motion" to the earth since this would not be a motion at all, but a kind of rest. It is certainly true that to the person holding the bowl, such a ball appears to move with respect to himself and to the bowl and to turn upon its axis. But with respect to the wan (or any other external thing), the ball does not turn at all, and does not change its tilt, and any point upon it will continue to point toward the same distant object" Galileo, The Assayer.

http://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-Assayer.pdf

There is a satisfactory conclusion that eluded both Galileo and Copernicus, although Copernicus came quite close in his original perspectives.

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 11:17:58 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> As the Precession of the Equinoxes within the Ptolemaic framework created the roughly 1-degree variation every 72 years,

But while that is a real motion, the "third motion" to which you are referring is the fact that the Earth's axis, since it always points
to the star Polaris (for now, neglecting precession) it describes a circle if you look at things in Tycho Brahe's system.

So from your viewpoint, where the Earth is totally subordinate to the Sun, and its rotation period is 24 hours, because that's
what it is relative to the line from the Earth to the Sun, there is a third motion.

From the viewpoint of Newtonians, who measure the Earth's rotation as 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, by taking
it against the stars - as if they were Ptolemaicists, as if they thought the Earth orbiting the Sun was of no importance
to the Earth's motions, as you might think - Kepler's view, that the direction of the Earth's axis is a stillness and not a
motion, is the right one.

John Savard

Jupiter is presently transitioning from a twilight to dawn appearance as it changes position from left to right of the Sun-

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

Jupiter's actual motion is from right to left gauged against the background stars but unlike Mercury which recently transitioned to an evening appearance in its motion from right to left, Jupiter moves slower than the Earth it will be seen changing position with the stars as a reflection of the Earth's own motion.

The framework which permits today's observers to put the motions of the planets in the context of a central Sun is the same one by which the 365/366-day calendar system is constructed which in turn provides the basis for the Ptolemaic system on which Copernicus based his hypothesis for a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system. The framework was unknown to Copernicus and Galileo and resolves an issue that nobody could at the time of the Galileo affair.

It would be exceptional if an individual, other than myself, had a firm grasp on what is being presented so that while mathematical or experimental theorists are determined to avoid the new framework through which timekeeping and planetary dynamics are combined by means of a tracking satellite, that avoidance cannot last.

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 1:29:39 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> It would be exceptional if an individual, other than myself, had a firm grasp
> on what is being presented so that while mathematical or experimental
> theorists are determined to avoid the new framework through which
> timekeeping and planetary dynamics are combined by means of a tracking
> satellite, that avoidance cannot last.

If your insights are such that they cannot be effectively communicated to
another living being, then indeed avoiding them may last for a very long
time.

The ideas that I see you presenting are the following:

- The Solar System should be understood from a hierarchical
standpoint. That is, the rotation of the Earth should be understood
in relation to its orbit around the Sun (so that 24 hours, the length
of a day, is also understood as the Earth's rotational period) and
that of the Moon should be understood in relation to its orbit around
the Earth (so that it is seen that the Moon *does not* rotate, as it
keeps one face always towards the Earth).

- The motions of the bodies of the Solar System are to be
understood by means of a narrative and interpretive framework,
not by empiricism and mathematics.

- Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were the titans who gave us a
correct understanding of the Solar System; Newton, however,
put astronomy on the wrong foot, from which it has not since
recovered.

I regard these views, needless to say, as the veriest nonsense.

It isn't just that I am so steeped in the Newtonian world-view as
to unreasonably favor it; it is because I _understand_ it that I know
it is self-consistent, and it is a powerful tool for explaining what the
Solar System does.

And so I see how the Equation of Time shows the Earth does have
a _uniform_ rotation with a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds - barring tiny corrections accounted for by real physical
causes - with the 24 hour day being simply an average of the result
of that rotation's interaction with the Earth's orbit.

And how the Moon's libration in longitude similarly shows that the
Moon truly does rotate, and that rotation, as well, is properly measured
with respect to the fixed stars (that being an "inertial frame", as they
say in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which, of course, you also
dismiss).

And then there's the amazing achievement of predicting the orbit of
Neptune from the perturbations of Uranus. Which would never have
happened if Newton's view of the Solar System as consisting of
big lumps of rock that move under universal gravitation following the
same rules as govern the flight of cannonballs in Earth's gravity was
not the simple and exact truth.

Nonsense can be memorized by rote, but it cannot be truly understood.

That is the root cause of your failure to communicate your insights,
such as they are. Only by realizing, and admitting to yourself, that you
are mistaken is there any hope for you to make genuine progress in
understanding and explaining the motions of the bodies in the Solar
System.

It is Newton whose great achievements took the Copernican system
from merely one debatable point of view to a hard fact which was beyond
any debate or argument; it was Newton who achieved the dream of
Kepler to explain the causes behind such things as the orbits of planets
being ellipses. It was Newton who followed the methods of Galileo, and
brought them to their full conclusion and fruition.

To deny Newton is to turn one's back on Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.

And this is what you have done. Your every post is a mockery of the
achievements of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, who you profess to
revere.

John Savard

The satellite shows the annual change in the position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane and from left to right referenced to the central Sun as a function of the Earth's orbital motion-

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

In this system, all stars act like Polaris and have a corresponding location on the planet so that a location on the surface can be assigned to a specific star in the same manner the North Pole is anchored to Polaris. On the surface of our planet which also rotates daily we mark the annual surface rotation as the change in position of a star, at least those close to the orbital plane, to a morning appearance or heliacal rising in seasonal terms as the first timekeepers and astronomers in antiquity gauged these observations-

" Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades? or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job, Chapter 38

The Decans are extremely old and predate the system of Ptolemy by thousands of years and it is the difference between the two that differentiates the ability to predict astronomical events ( Ptolemy) from interpretative astronomy where the latter is better served by introducing the SOHO camera's imaging for creative and productive endeavours. Although few have an interest in the views of Copernicus and Galileo, it demonstrates a level of difficulty and appreciation those men had with the Ptolemaic system without being able to resolve the issue.