Epicycles and Modern Astronomy

  • 3 Replies
  • 1761 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Epicycles and Modern Astronomy
« on: March 22, 2008, 05:18:31 PM »
The principle method used to accurately determine star positions from at least the second century AD onwards is that of the geocentric astronomy of Claudius Ptolemy, in particular a form of astronomical measurement called an epicycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor

Gravitation Versus Relativity
By Charles Poor
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=H9AgAAAAMAAJ&dq=gravitation+versus+relativity&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=P71Sn681tL&sig=sSgi6SU0pubQImDq6WklSKmtQSU

According to american astronomer Charles Poor's 1922 work 'Gravitation Versus Relativity:  A Non-technical Explanation of the Fundamental Principles of Gravitational Astronomy', the method used by modern astronomers to determine astronomical cordinates of stars and planets differs in fact not at all from the ptolemaic system of epicycles in use prior to the copernican revolution of Galileo and Newton.  According to Poor, only the ancient name of the method (the epicycles) was discarded during the seventeenth century, but the technique of remains the same even today. 

In other words, as far as the actual measurement of star positions, essentially nothing at all changed during the heliocentric revolution.  The very exact knowledge of the positions of stars that astronomers have today is due entirely to the old geocentric astronomy - heliocentric theories and propaganda only confusing the matter.

Towards confirmation of Professor Poor's statement about epicycles still being in use , the actual coordinates of star positions listed in astronomical ephemerises are indeed determined according to a geocentric non-moving Earth and not according to the heliocentric model.  This can be verified by referencing any astronomical ephemeris such as those published by ACS or the US Naval Observatory , among others, and used in observatories.

http://www.astrocom.com/products/book.php?book_id=b106x

I took four university level astronomy classes (two lecture courses and two labs).  The ephemerises used in the labs were published by ACS and contained the statement that all figures were derived from calculations based on a geocentric non-moving earth.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2008, 03:31:03 PM by 17 November »

*

sokarul

  • 18473
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Epicycles and Modern Astronomy
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2008, 01:29:42 AM »
This thread is worthless. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Epicycles and Modern Astronomy
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2008, 01:38:44 AM »
 Your 1st link is a no go.

 
Quote
essentially nothing at all changed during the heliocentric revolution
That's because Copernicus (et al) kept to the notion of epicycles and epitrochoidal orbits.
 
So, your Astronomy class used a book from a publisher intended for use in Astrology?
 believe that; the Earth is flat until such time as I stand within the Space Station and personally see that it is a Globe.
or that the Earth is a sphere until such time as I stand upon the Icewall and personally see that it is a Flat Disk.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Epicycles and Modern Astronomy
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2008, 01:28:58 PM »
Quote from: Mythix Profit
Your 1st link is a no go.

Fixed with a new link that references excerpts from the book in which Professor Poor says that epicycles are used by modern astronomers.  Specifically, go to pages 69 and 70 of the link which I have reproduced here again and you can see where the astronomer Charles Poor states reguarding the epicycles developed by Hipparchus (which were subsequently adopted by Claudius Ptolemy) that

"ALTHOUGH THE NAMES, EPICYCLE AND EPICYCLIC THEORY, HAVE LONG FALLEN INTO DIREPUTE, YET THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE MATHEMATICAL METHOD DEVISED BY HIPPARCHUS UNDER THIS NAME IS STILL IN USE AMONG ASTRONOMERS AND PHYSICISTS, AND FORMS THE BASIS OF THE MOST MODERN TABLES OF THE MOTIONS OF THE SUN, MOON, AND PLANETS.  THE NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED, THAT IS ALL."

Gravitation Versus Relativity
By Charles Poor
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=H9AgAAAAMAAJ&dq=gravitation+versus+relativity&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=P71Sn681tL&sig=sSgi6SU0pubQImDq6WklSKmtQSU#PPA70,M1

Quote
essentially nothing at all changed during the heliocentric revolution
Quote from: Mythix Profit
That's because Copernicus (et al) kept to the notion of epicycles and epitrochoidal orbits.

Exactly.  And modern astronomers also keep to the "notion" of epicycles in practice.
 
Quote from: Mythix Profit
So, your Astronomy class used a book from a publisher intended for use in Astrology?

While that publisher does focus on astrology, the particular book in question was not intended exclusively for use in astrology.  It is a reference book containing accurate astronomical data, and the astronomers I know are familiar with this publisher not because of its astrology books but because of the astronomical ephemerises which it publishes.  And the classes were astronomy classes - not astrology.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2008, 01:45:44 PM by 17 November »