Drop the ego. You've just lost a prospective reader.
S.

"Top Professional" <senior.resident@sci.astro.com> wrote in message
news:YWQCIN8U37844.8197800926@Gilgamesh-frog.org...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


AS A PUBLIC SERVICE to newcomers and other interested visitors
to astronomy newsgroups I've put aside my natural contempt for
the "amateurs" and "avoiders" who clutter up these fine groups
with their mouldy tripe, just so that independent readers like
you can learn the truth <<snip>>

Drop the ego. You've just lost a prospective reader.
S.

Top Professional <senior.resident@sci.astro.com> wrote in message
news:YWQCIN8U37844.8197800926@Gilgamesh-frog.org...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


AS A PUBLIC SERVICE to newcomers and other interested visitors
to astronomy newsgroups I've put aside my natural contempt for
the "amateurs" and "avoiders" who clutter up these fine groups
with their mouldy tripe, just so that independent readers like
you can learn the truth about how ancient stargazers could see
the progressive motion of the planets in the night sky, and as
a result of watching the night sky over mere decades were able
to easily deduce the following facts about the visible planets:

Fact #1: The planets obviously orbit the Sun.
The further out from the Sun that a
planet is in orbit, then the longer
it takes for the planet to orbit it.

Fact #2: Mercury and Venus are closer to the
Sun in their respective orbits than
Earth is in her orbit about the Sun.

Fact #3: Mercury orbits the Sun a lot faster
than Venus orbits the Sun and Venus
orbits the Sun faster than Earth or-
bits the Sun. This is equally plain
to see for anyone observing the sky
then keeping track by counting days
between repetitive planetary motion
on regular occasion for a few years.

Fact #4: Mars is further from the Sun in its
orbit than Earth is, and Jupiter is
further from the Sun than Mars, and
Saturn is further away than Jupiter,
and all are in orbit around the Sun.

Fact #5: Uranus is barely visible to mans un-
aided eye if you know exactly where
and when to look for it, and seeing
conditions are ideal, as in ancient
times before light pollution & smog,
as in dry, desert-like environments.
By such observations it was obvious
that Uranus is further from the Sun
than Saturn is, with a longer orbit
of some 84 years compared to 29 1/2
years for Saturn's orbit of the Sun.

There's a plethora of obvious conclusions that are
drawn from these self-evident and observable facts,
all of which were drawn by ancient stargazers--and
then some--but the underlying point is made. It is
impossible that ancient astronomers could not have
known that the planets orbit the Sun, nor could've
these same ancient observers not've have known the
Earth is generally spherical in shape & not "flat".

That's all. I've written books on the subject, but
I leave it to the reader to read what I've written,
otherwise you're stuck with prevailing unawareness,
and the advantage academia has taken upon yourself.

One can only stare in wonder at the chutzpah and ignorance of such a 'Top
Professional.' (In what profession, the writer doesn't say).

That knowledge of planetary orbits took Kepler 8 years of frustrating,
eye-destroying, committed labor -- built on 20 years' of careful
observations of Tycho (who remained a devoted Ptolemaic to the end). This
'Top Professional' got spoon-fed (as a student) the end result of more

20 centuries of careful observation, thought, death (Bruno) and threats of
death (Copernicus, Galileo). And he claims that these results are
'self-evident, observable facts!'

Remember, the Ptolemaic system was far more accurate and precise than the
Copernican model -- because the Ptolemaic always added another epicycle or
deferent in order to match observation.

#1: The knowledge that planets take longer to orbit the Sun is not evident
to the observer of the celestial sphere. All that one can observe is that
the planets move relative to the stars. And the relative motion is a
complex function of the distance *from the Earth* -- not a simple function
of the distance from the Sun.

#2: This requires thought and a theory -- not just observation! And the
theory of the Sun in the center of the system, to boot. The unique aspect
of the inner planets is that they have a maximum elongation from the Sun.
Which only requires that they are tied to the Sun. Not the rest of the
planets.

#3: The periods of Mercury and Venus' orbits around the Sun are not

to an observer -- who can only see their motions with respect to the
stars -- as they are distorted by the Earth's own motions. This is not
"plain" to day-counters. Again, once you 'know the answer' it's
straightforward. It's not easy to figure out beforehand.

#4: One cannot determine distances from looking at those moving dots!

took millenia to get right. Jupiter is usually brighter than Mars. That
would imply that it was closer than Mars. (It's just much bigger and more
reflective -- who would have thought such a thing, a priori?) Saturn and
Mars are on average about equally bright. How is a poor skywatcher to

the 'self-evident' fact?

#5: Uranus was not generally known to ancient skywatchers. It was too dim
to pick up regularly, and too slow to see much motion over a reasonable
timeframe. There were 5 planets in pre-telescope days: Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. William Herschel reported the discovery in

Uranus had been plotted as a star on several sky maps, prior to Herschel's
identification -- but no one knew it wasn't just another 6th magnitude

It's only 'obvious' if one already has a Sun-centered worldview.

Obviously, 'Top Professional' is a legend in his own mind.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

One can only stare in wonder

Top Professional <senior.resident@sci.astro.com> wrote in message
news:YWQCIN8U37844.8197800926@Gilgamesh-frog.org...

One can only stare in wonder at the chutzpah and ignorance of such a 'Top
Professional.' (In what profession, the writer doesn't say).