"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
>> >> Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from
>> >> the
>> >> observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and
>> >> genius
>> >> of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of
>> >> Tycho's
>> >> measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to
>> >> come
>> >> up
>> >> with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
>> >> The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton
>> >> there
>> >> was
>> >> no _theory_.
>> > Who gives a damn about 'theories' or how you choose to judge Copernicus
>> > or Kepler,the Newtonian view of retrogrades and how they are resolved
>> > is incorrect,damaging and are not supported by the careful work of the
>> > heliocentric astronomers and more importantly,by contemporary imaging
>> > of plotted positions and time lapse motion .
>> Once more you resort to bluff and bluster to hide the fact that you
>> justify your assertion that Newton's method is incorrect. If you can't
>> support your argument you should accept it and shut up.
> Along with Kepler ,Galileo and the other early heliocentric
> astronomers,I can afiirm the Copernican reasoning that planetary
> motions are seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.
I'm sure Copenicus thanks you for supporting him - it's been touch and go
for the last 450+ years.