It is unusual that the perception of planetary dynamics never altered one bit after it was discovered that the Sun and the rest of the solar system has a forward motion through space as a function of galactic structure.

The axiom that planets closer to the Sun move faster than planets further away from the centre would also be central to the variation in orbital speeds of planets as they move with our central star in our galactic component for half an orbit and in the
opposite direction for the other half of the orbit.

It indicates that solar system and galactic components act in combination rather than the 250+ year old attempt based on attraction to the Sun alone using terrestrial trajectories (experimentation) as a foundation called the Universal theory of gravity.

The original theory of Kepler has a lot to recommend it for although he bases his assertion on scaling up moons to planets-

"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

With imaging looming from the JWST, it is hoped that observations will provide a more productive avenue of research that places more emphasis on visual imaging as opposed to wayward mathematical constructs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:56:51 PM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

It is unusual that the perception of planetary dynamics never altered one bit after it was discovered that the Sun and the rest of the solar system has a forward motion through space as a function of galactic structure.

Gravity is, when shit hits the ground, but doesn't bounce back!
😏😏😏

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:06:10 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

but doesn't bounce back!

No, failure to bounce back is due to the dissipation of energy through friction. Gravity is a conservative force, so it's responsible for things moving in the direction of the ground in the first place, but it has
nothing against them bouncing back up.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I have a great affection for the 1666 work of John Wallis and his letter to Robert Boyle which covers multiple topics which were later attributed to the monstrosity of Newton-

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1665.0108

Newton had an opinion on attraction which he called gravitation, however, his main aim was to remove interpretation of large scale observations while scaling up experimental predictions as a substitute. His followers, to this day, haven't a clue how he
set about vandalising the antecedent astronomical principles, yet the biggest error was that the framework he chose was RA/Dec which attempts to run observations off the Earth's daily rotational traits where the Sun wanders along with the planets-

http://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/solar_year.gif

It amounts to a misadventure with timekeeping before it is anything else.

As I get older, I still have that great love of what our ancestors achieved with limited observations, but these days, a physical tiredness sets in where once that energy was never an issue.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 7:53:33 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:06:10 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

but doesn't bounce back!

No, failure to bounce back is due to the dissipation of energy through friction. Gravity is a conservative force, so it's responsible for things moving in the direction of the ground in the first place, but it has
nothing against them bouncing back up.

John Savard

Cow shit don't bounce, but splatters, rabbit shit bounce a bit because hard and round!
Like popcorn!
😎

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:27:07 AM UTC+1, StarDust wrote:

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 7:53:33 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:06:10 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

but doesn't bounce back!

No, failure to bounce back is due to the dissipation of energy through friction. Gravity is a conservative force, so it's responsible for things moving in the direction of the ground in the first place, but it has nothing against them bouncing back up.

John Savard

Cow shit don't bounce, but splatters, rabbit shit bounce a bit because hard and round!
Like popcorn!
😎

Yuk !.

Then again, I see these older men here who must see that your view, such as it is, is as valid as an apple attracted to the ground. If this is what their lives and beliefs amount to then I am sure they are dismayed whereas you have already given up on
life.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 10:05:14 PM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:27:07 AM UTC+1, StarDust wrote:

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 7:53:33 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:06:10 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

but doesn't bounce back!

No, failure to bounce back is due to the dissipation of energy through friction. Gravity is a conservative force, so it's responsible for things
moving in the direction of the ground in the first place, but it has nothing against them bouncing back up.

John Savard

Cow shit don't bounce, but splatters, rabbit shit bounce a bit because hard and round!
Like popcorn!
😎

Yuk !.

Then again, I see these older men here who must see that your view, such as it is, is as valid as an apple attracted to the ground. If this is what their lives and beliefs amount to then I am sure they are dismayed whereas you have already given up on

life.

You see, I have multiple personalities, that's why sometimes the Mr. Newton comes out, flashing smartness to all!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/2022 2:56 AM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

It is unusual that the perception of planetary dynamics never altered one bit after it was discovered that the Sun and the rest of the solar system has a forward motion through space as a function of galactic structure.

Why do you think "the perception of planetary dynamics" should have
altered?

And how did you determine the motion of the Solar System has a "forward
motion through space"? How do you know it's not backwards or sideways?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:44:59 PM UTC+1, eric GREENE wrote:

On 8/2/2022 2:56 AM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

It is unusual that the perception of planetary dynamics never altered one bit after it was discovered that the Sun and the rest of the solar system has a forward motion through space as a function of galactic structure.

Why do you think "the perception of planetary dynamics" should have
altered?

And how did you determine the motion of the Solar System has a "forward motion through space"? How do you know it's not backwards or sideways?

The planets have a forward motion around the Sun, the solar system has a forward motion around the Galactic centre.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:44:59 AM UTC-6, eric GREENE wrote:

And how did you determine the motion of the Solar System has a "forward motion through space"? How do you know it's not backwards or sideways?

Surely that's accounted for by the convention of referring to the direction
of motion of something that doesn't really have a front or back as forwards.

I'm sure you can find more serious flaws in his writings to criticize.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/4/2022 2:59 PM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:44:59 PM UTC+1, eric GREENE wrote:

On 8/2/2022 2:56 AM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

It is unusual that the perception of planetary dynamics never altered one bit after it was discovered that the Sun and the rest of the solar system has a forward motion through space as a function of galactic structure.

Why do you think "the perception of planetary dynamics" should have
altered?

And how did you determine the motion of the Solar System has a "forward
motion through space"? How do you know it's not backwards or sideways?

The planets have a forward motion around the Sun, the solar system has a forward motion around the Galactic centre.

Those are your claims. Your claims are not explanations for why the
"planetary dynamics" should have altered. I think you are actually
thinking of orbital dynamics rather than planetary.

What inaccuracies can be demonstrated by not using the solar system's
motion vs. how orbital dynamics for the planets are calculated now?

And what does "forward motion" even mean when talking about the movement
of the solar system by galactic rotation? How do you define your usage
of the term>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 5:53:41 PM UTC+1, eric GREENE wrote:

On 8/4/2022 2:59 PM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:44:59 PM UTC+1, eric GREENE wrote:

On 8/2/2022 2:56 AM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

It is unusual that the perception of planetary dynamics never altered one bit after it was discovered that the Sun and the rest of the solar system has a forward motion through space as a function of galactic structure.

Why do you think "the perception of planetary dynamics" should have
altered?

And how did you determine the motion of the Solar System has a "forward >> motion through space"? How do you know it's not backwards or sideways?

The planets have a forward motion around the Sun, the solar system has a forward motion around the Galactic centre.

Those are your claims. Your claims are not explanations for why the "planetary dynamics" should have altered. I think you are actually
thinking of orbital dynamics rather than planetary.

You are new here so probably haven't encountered the updated resolution for direct/retrograde motions of planets depending on whether they are moving faster or slower than the Earth.

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

Venus and Mercury are moving in the same direction as the Earth around the Sun with Venus moving between the slower moving Earth and central Sun while Mercury is moving in the opposite direction behind the Sun.

Maybe one contributor will bring you up to speed on what has changed here, I doubt it, however, those planets will spend half their orbits moving with the Sun in the direction of our solar system's galactic orbital motion and the other half moving in the
opposite direction. The axiom that planets closer to the Sun move faster also serves any variations which occur as a combination of orbital motion around the Sun and orbital motion with the solar system as it moves around the Galactic centre.

Planetary dynamics and orbital dynamics is just playing with words as the usual suspects here know what I mean.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 11:23:07 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe one contributor will bring you up to speed on what has changed here, I doubt it,

I, too, doubt that there is anyone here who could bring him up to date on the amazing new insights of yours that have revolutionized astronomy. Why not?

Well, I don't think that anyone else on this newsgroup is sympathetic to your view
of astronomy.

Here is what your view appears like to me:

You are full of praise, rightly so, for Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, whose insights
into the true state of affairs in the Solar System, with the Earth going around the
Sun, rather than the Sun going around the Earth, revolutionized astronomy.

Unfortunately, that's where it stops. Isaac Newton, who realized Kepler's dream of
understanding why the planets move as they do, is denounced by you. You think his inverse square law of gravity is just so much mumbo-jumbo.

The people in this newsgroup _know_ this isn't so. Explaining the motions of the
planets by the same physical laws of mechanics that govern Earthly events... was
the *proof* that Copernicus was right, totally shutting down alternative ideas like
those of Tycho Brahe or Ptolemy. And it led to future advances in celestial mechanics, such as the perturbation theory that led to the discovery of Neptune through the effects of its gravity on the orbit of Uranus.

And so what you get for your pains is derision. I can't help that; it's up to you to stop
making the careless - and morally culpable - decision to dismiss a large segment of
modern astronomy as false because the math in it happens to be too hard for you.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:24:16 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 11:23:07 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe one contributor will bring you up to speed on what has changed here, I doubt it,

I, too, doubt that there is anyone here who could bring him up to date on the
amazing new insights of yours that have revolutionized astronomy. Why not?

Well, I don't think that anyone else on this newsgroup is sympathetic to your view
of astronomy.

Here is what your view appears like to me:

You are full of praise, rightly so, for Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, whose insights
into the true state of affairs in the Solar System, with the Earth going around the
Sun, rather than the Sun going around the Earth, revolutionized astronomy.

The framework which those researchers used was a stationary field of background stars where the orbital periods of celestial objects were gauged with the Sun seen to move directly through the constellations in a 365 day period between the 687 day orbital
period of Mars and the 225 day orbital period of Venus and their direct/retrograde motions. The dispute among researchers over the ages was the placement of Venus and Mercury-

" Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars. This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the revolutions. Their principle assumes that of
objects moving equally fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in Euclid’s Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the nearest to the earth. The
highest planet, on the other hand, is Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below it is Jupiter, followed by Mars.

With regard to Venus and Mercury, however, differences of opinion are found. For, these planets do not pass through every elongation from the sun, as the other planets do. Hence Venus and Mercury are located above the sun by some authorities, like Plato�
�s Timaeus (38 D), but below the sun by others, like Ptolemy (Syntaxis, IX, 1) and many of the modems. Al-Bitruji places Venus above the sun, and Mercury below it. " Copernicus

It has nothing to do with whether the Sun moves around the Earth or visa versa, it was the arrangement of planets and this issue still remained into the heliostatic era with Brahe's mutation of the Copernican structure.

All this has changed by providing a 21st century resolution for direct/retrograde motions for Venus and Mercury separate to the slower moving Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and so on by using time lapse from a satellite free from daily rotational influences-

The fixed star background is retained for the direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets-

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

The direct/retrogrades of the faster moving Venus and Mercury are resolved by using the annual change of the background stars to the foreground central Sun in response to a moving Earth, thereby providing a central fixed reference for the back and forth
movement of Venus and Mercury in their smaller and faster circuits of the Sun-

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

This is a point of departure for building up a new narrative that permits genuine theorists to work on dynamics on a planetary or solar system scale, whether the moons around planets, planets around the Sun or the solar system in our galactic orbital
motion. There is a strong clue in the specific way a planet orbits the Sun aside from its variable orbital speed which involves introducing a separate surface rotation to the Sun as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:24:16 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 11:23:07 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe one contributor will bring you up to speed on what has changed here, I doubt it,

I, too, doubt that there is anyone here who could bring him up to date on the
amazing new insights of yours that have revolutionized astronomy. Why not?

Well, I don't think that anyone else on this newsgroup is sympathetic to your view
of astronomy.

Here is what your view appears like to me:

Unfortunately, that's where it stops. Isaac Newton, who realized Kepler's dream of
understanding why the planets move as they do, is denounced by you. You think
his inverse square law of gravity is just so much mumbo-jumbo.

This is why you were never worth responding to as you are untrustworthy while others are not.

There was no inverse square law of gravity, there was an attempt to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions through the clockwork solar system known as RA/Dec. There is no equivalency for the Sun around the Earth with the Earth
around the Sun as previously demonstrated within the method of the first Sun researchers using Ptolemy's framework.

PHÆNOMENON IV.
" That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun. This proportion,
first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the Sun." Newton

The periodic times arguments used for relating planetary distance from the Sun using their orbital periods are nothing like that mangled junk attributed to Kepler-

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic
mean between both diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and extract the cube roots of this
ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance
from the sun, is slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun." Kepler

All this is forensics and goes nowhere, the real issue is now how to apply observations derived from a combination of orbital geometries which includes the Sun's motion is one direction through space while the planets move with the Sun and against the
direction at different periods of their orbits. The axiom that planets move faster as they are closer to the Sun is combined with any solar system influences generated by the solar system's galactic orbital motions.

Once again, you are always too untrustworthy to speak for me, but it never stopped you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

There is an extra-solar system component to the Earth's orbital motion which leans towards galactic influences acting on our planet and the others.

The stellar circumpolar motion of the stars indicates that the North pole, where daily rotation velocity is zero, continuously moves in one direction in space as the component of the Earth's annual and galactic orbital motion and extended to the entire
surface of the Earth-

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

I have urged observers to experience the analogy for interpretative purposes to no avail, however, better late than never for demonstrating the extra-solar component to orbital motion.

A person's body represents the Earth while a central body represents the central Sun with the floor acting as the orbital plane. The person's nose roughly represents the North pole relative to the orbital plane and the planet's divisor at right angles to
the orbital plane. As the person walks around the central object/Sun while keeping their nose constantly fixed to an external point imitating the time lapse above, they discover that they have to walk forwards, then sideways, then backwards before
completing the circuit by walking forwards once more. All points of the body will face the central Sun at one time or another, so when daily rotation is included, the combination of these two surface rotations is responsible for the seasons.

The second insight is, that unlike the moon where one hemisphere faces the Earth at all times, the Earth faces away in one direction in space that is not towards the central Sun. These analogies and insights are not directed towards contending with old
or false perspectives, but opening up a new approach where proper modelling can begin. I deal with the issues at the level of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler so whatever happens after this is not for me to say yet hard to miss the opportunities present
with the more accurate and productive perspectives.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 11:34:46 AM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

The stellar circumpolar motion of the stars indicates that the North pole, where daily rotation velocity is zero, continuously moves in one direction in space as the component of the Earth's annual and galactic orbital motion and extended to the entire

surface of the Earth-

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

The correct description is that the North pole, where daily rotation velocity is zero, points continuously in one direction in space as a component of both annual and galactic orbital motion.

It means for half an orbit (excluding daily rotation traits), half a hemisphere points in the same direction as the solar system's galactic orbital motion and the other hemisphere points in the opposite direction.

This certainly needs a graphical description, but since when have any community sought to expand and clean up observations in order to provide a better foundation for orbital dynamics whether it is the Earth around the Sun or the Earth with the Sun
around the Galactic centre.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:34:46 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

A person's body represents the Earth while a central body represents the central Sun with the floor acting as the orbital plane. The person's nose roughly represents the North pole relative to the orbital plane and the planet's divisor at right angles

to the orbital plane. As the person walks around the central object/Sun while keeping their nose constantly fixed to an external point imitating the time lapse above, they discover that they have to walk forwards, then sideways, then backwards before
completing the circuit by walking forwards once more. All points of the body will face the central Sun at one time or another, so when daily rotation is included, the combination of these two surface rotations is responsible for the seasons.

Gerald, if you replaced the word "Earth" with the word "moon", this paragraph would be equally true. If you lived on the far side of the moon you would see the Sun and stars rise and set, once every Earth month rather than once every Earth day... and you
would never even know that the Earth existed...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 11:34:01 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:34:46 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

A person's body represents the Earth while a central body represents the central Sun with the floor acting as the orbital plane. The person's nose roughly represents the North pole relative to the orbital plane and the planet's divisor at right

angles to the orbital plane. As the person walks around the central object/Sun while keeping their nose constantly fixed to an external point imitating the time lapse above, they discover that they have to walk forwards, then sideways, then backwards
before completing the circuit by walking forwards once more. All points of the body will face the central Sun at one time or another, so when daily rotation is included, the combination of these two surface rotations is responsible for the seasons.

Gerald, if you replaced the word "Earth" with the word "moon", this paragraph would be equally true. If you lived on the far side of the moon you would see the Sun and stars rise and set, once every Earth month rather than once every Earth day... and

you would never even know that the Earth existed...

The analogy for interpretative purposes is valid Paul, however, the details are so various and perhaps intricate that a digression to the moon's motion is misplaced presently. Part of the exercise is extracting any daily rotation component from
observations, for example, the relationship between a point of the surface of the Earth where daily rotation velocity is zero (North pole) and the Earth's orbital direction through space. It involves screening out the noise of stellar circumpolar motion
and focusing on the orbital component of our planet's motion-

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

This allows the perspective that there is a foreground fixed reference, in this case the central Sun, providing the only basis for the change in position of the stars to the foreground Sun in response to the annual motion of the Earth around the Sun-

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

(Lovely sungrazer presently)

It would be just a technical discussion among those who are open and interested. It can be trying to know that people are well capable of appreciating the demonstration that the Earth moves through space by using time lapse for the SOHO satellite and the
annual change in the position of the stars from left (evening appearance) to right (morning appearance) of the foreground Sun as observers do it anyway for the planets. For instance, Mercury has recently changed to a dawn appearance and to the left of
the Sun as seen from the slower moving Earth.

To all intents and purposes, the Earth's orbital behaviour indicates a Galactic orbital component along with its motion around our parent star for although we consider our central star stationary for solar system structural purposes, our Sun also has a
forward motion through space.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)