v = wr
5. When closer to Earth at perigee, Moon travel slower not faster than when further away at apogee. Bigger it appear for
moment, closer too, and intelligent intuition is correct that when moon bigger in sky and closer at perigee, it travels slower also than at apogee. For instance, when big full
moon appear over open water in eastern horizon, in the little lined section of the offing where it first rises, when closer and bigger at perigee, it appears to have greater weight and presence then, than when it looks smaller and apprarently further away -- and when closer it also is slower.
it was so close, one evening, that it was almost touching the ocean or the mountains in the horizon, like poetry, it would be going slower than it has ever gone before and appear bigger than it has ever appeared. The closest to Earth that the full moon
has ever been at super perigee is when it has loomed the largest, and also gone the slowest. If it did come down and touch the ocean or the mountains, it would be going the slowest it has ever gone, and for the moment not even be moving, as the Earth itself
is not moving.
With the sun and the stars, the moon circles the Earth in a continuum, from East to West, clockwise when viewed from above the North pole; and it loses on average
about one degree to the ecliptic for every two hours. It loses about one degree to the ecliptic for every two hours because the fixed stars of the constellations that are much further out in space are going much faster. All these stars are going from East
to West around the Earth as well, and in just less than 28 days they all will have passed the moon again, and then the moon will be back to another beginning in view of the stars and signs of the ecliptic. The stars that keep passing it up month to month through
the years, create the repetition of the sidereal month, which is not how long it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth.
The distance of the moon from the Earth and its celestial
momentum may vary. When the moon transits slower, it loses a little more than one degree to the ecliptic for every two hours; and when it transits faster, it loses a little less than one degree for every two hours. If it were going from West to East, it would
be the opposite case, but it is going from East to West around the Earth, as the stars are as well.
it were circling in the opposite direction of the stars, as it went faster, it would measure more change in terms of the background ecliptic rather than less. But the change
measured in the moon’s degrees of the ecliptic is caused by its overall slowness in view of the stars traveling faster than it around Earth. Heliocentrism from Kepler and Newton,
and even down to today, reverses the course of the moon, gets all this backwards, and teaches that when it is further away it goes slower and when closer it goes faster.
other words, Kepler’s Second Law, the “Law of Equal Areas”, that “a line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time,” is false, since when the moon and the sun are closer to Earth, they
transit slower not faster, and then they encircle less area also. When further away, they transit faster, and encircle more overall area. The lines of radius joining the sun and the moon to the Earth do not sweep out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
For a fair estimate, the moon’s distance from Earth at apogee may be close to 253,000 miles, and the moon orbits the Earth from east
to west, clockwise when viewed from above the North pole, in an average of 24 hours and 50 minutes. If the radius of the Earth is about 3963 miles, and the radius of the moon is about 1080 miles, for the angular as circular velocity of the moon around the
Earth, add the radius of the Earth and the moon to the distance number. At apogee, this number becomes 258,043 miles.
The formula for angular velocity is v = wr, where v is velocity, and w in the case of the moon is 1 rot./24.833333 x 2pi radians/1 rot., and r is radius. Then v = (pi/12.4166666) x 258,043 miles = 65,288.5 mph.
Using the same formula for angular/circular velocity v = wr for the means and perigee of the moon, lower celestial
momentum is indicated when the moon is closer to Earth. If the mean distance of the moon is about 240,000 miles, then that measure plus the Earth’s radius 3963, and the moon’s radius 1080, is 245,043. 245,043 miles x (pi/12.4166666) = 61,999.35
mph roughly for the means.
In the same way, for velocity of perigee, if the moon’s
distance from Earth is reckoned 227,000 miles, then that plus 3963 and 1080 is 232,043. 232,043 miles x (pi/12.4166666) = 58,710.168 mph.
As v = wr relates to algebra and logic, and that distance equals rate multiplied by time, and rate(velocity) equals distance divided by time, the set ratios of the numbers involved in the celestial motion of
the moon around the Earth crunch inexorably against Kepler’s Second Law. As the time element incorporated within the denominator of “w” increases, as simple time, or as some little digits for math class after math class ad infinitum 24.833333
~~~, “w” and radius and velocity all decrease, as the property of division by time increases. As time in the denominator gets bigger, the property of division increases and reduces velocity, and area of sweep covered.
It is not too difficult to see that more time means less velocity and less radius. As the distance between
the Earth and the moon decreases, the speed also decreases -- for whenever the time increases, rolled away in the denominator of “w” like a governing hammer, it decreases
everything in terms of radius and velocity from there, also decreasing the overall value of “w”.
the moon’s origin of celestial motion is separate from the Earth. The moon and the Earth are separated by vast distances in space, obviously, and are quite different from each other. When the
length of the moon’s separation from Earth increases, by logic and math and analysis of astronomy, its speed also increases, as v = (w)r, for all other things being equal.
Every orbit of the Moon divides in four sections, and it does not appear to go from perigee to apogee within a quarter section, from horizon to midheaven, or midheaven to
horizon; and it does not appear to go from apogee or perigee to the means in a quarter section either: it appears to orbit in one gradual circle for a day, and the quarter sections have uniform curvature over the passage of time.
Every quarter section represents about 6 hours and 12 or 13 minutes, for an average. Circling the Earth from perigee to
apogee and in the means over an extended period, it does not appear to be going around the Earth in an ellipse either.
Kepler believed that when one of the planets orbiting the sun neared the sun it would pick up acceleration, because of "gravity", but then when further away it would decelerate. This notion became the basis of his “Law of Equal Areas”,
that the line from a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time, also over the form of an ellipse; so that when a planet is closer to the sun, which would then be exercising greater “gravity” over it, it speeds up, and
when further away, it slows down.
As to gravity, Einstein too would later draw an assumed equivalence between acceleration and gravity; but gravity does not cause acceleration,
except in freefall going directly down; and in freefall, "gravity" works only vertically, not laterally. From wherever anyone can test it, gravity does not push or pull things horizontally in space, and the clear result of all gravity on Earth is that it brings
things to rest.
Gravity -- as compression, tension, and concentration of weight -- causes deceleration not acceleration, unless there is explosive release of some sort, and explosions
are not due to gravity either but to the elements. For instance, when media of greater density and weight than air, whether liquid or solid, would affect the transmission of light, so would "gravity" also decelerate the speed of light with denser compaction than "anti-gravity". If it were a universal force, gravity would weigh things down, even the wavelengths of light. Slowing things down, gravity would tend to bring them towards an inertial stasis
of equilibrium, not speed them up.
Kepler had strange occult ideas about the sun, the moon, and the cosmos, and added to the development of the unscientific notions of universal
gravitation and occult action-at-a-distance that would become so pivotal for Newton. With no sensible or practical scientific connections, no applied mechanics, they postulated occult forces that were exercising powerful and vast spooky actions-at-a-distance.
The truth is that Kepler had no idea what specific power drove Mercury and Venus around the sun, so he imagined that the sun itself was somehow pushing and pulling them along in space by some
mysterious force. He thought that the agency of this occult action-at-a-distance from the sun was greater and pushed harder when a planet like Venus or Mercury was nearer, and that the
force of this occult action-at-a-distance was less and weaker when a planet was further away.
But between the Sun, Mercury, and Venus, there are no interstitial cords, chains, pinions
-- no rack and no direct connection like levers. Nothing as natural leverage and no connected extension is there to move them over an abyssmal break in space. With no mechanical steering device between them, with no handle or grip, even for Zeus, and no rope
and pulley, there is no latticework hidden in the interstices betwixt and between like "universal gravitation". With
no clear natural connection or immediate directive charge to measure in the space between them, there simply is nothing there in a verifiable quantifiable species like any physically connecting terrestrial force of magnetism, or of weight, density, tension,
or pressure, et cetera.
Whatever unique power it is that drives the Sun, the Moon, and the stars around the Earth, it is not gravity but something else. It must be a celestial
power charging them up, sui generis, and driving them around and also keeping them within the range of their proper spheres. And the "gravitational" environment of the Earth does not move things anyway. It brings things on Earth to rest, in agreement
with a detectable principle of equilibrium, compaction, and density in the elements and heavy objects around the Earth. Simili gaudet simile, and things that are loosed across the surface of Earth tend to come to rest, as the Earth is always already at rest
before them, and all three of Kepler's laws of planetary motion are wrong.
If the sun were exercising a directional power over Mercury and Venus, causing them to orbit
it in circular weaves, as it orbits the Earth, this would not be within the order of normal powers in common physics that could be verified by empirical science. It would be something much more rarefied like an order of celestial agency if not "metaphyics".
It would be something not subject to ordinary and direct scientific investigation but evidence of higher celestial powers. Explaining it by gravity, universal gravitation, and occult action-at-a-distance, therefore, would only be analogous to something unknown
involved in the agency, something almost ineffable, and hidden away in the order of metaphysical hypothesis and theology, as logic explains logic.
At the root an esoteric hypothesis
about celestial impetus, Kepler’s theory of gravity and universal gravitation should at least pass strict logic to be scientifically acceptable, even if it is not for any practically applied mechanics. Since the sun is so much more massive and powerful than Mercury, if it were pulling it around in circles by its much greater "gravity", and this were the force for innate matter, eventually it would pull Mercury all the way down
into it. If Mercury were being pulled around by the sun’s gravity, it would be overwhelmed by it one day and finally fall down into it, and the compression would have it.
Mercury has not been dragged down into the sun and dissolved, it must not be pulled and pushed around by its much greater forces innate to matter and gravitational field either. Therefore,
there must be another powerful neutral gravity zone between them, which must be more powerful than the sun’s own gravitational field or natural attendance of compression and collection within itself and for its area. A neutral zone of division then is
situated around it like a chasm, otherwise Mercury would collapse into the Sun, and lose the dynamic of its orbit, one day with time suffering complete orbital decay and falling into
Unless the Sun were an intelligent being like a god, with some divine dexterity and will, it could not itself be pushing and then pulling and directing Mercury around it,
and neither could its gravity.
Clearly then Mercury goes around the Sun in its own circuits and proper to its own operation and existence, speeding along within the effects of its
own sphere, in its orbital patterns differentially speciated to it alone. In simple terms, like a community ordinance of private property, it is set in motion in and of its own celestial
divide from the other side of the abyss set between it and the Sun.
If Mercury has a unique and separate origin of motion, with a neutral gravity zone between it and the Sun, then
there must be one between Venus and the Sun as well; and, of course, there are many more neutral gravity zones across space, as much as there are separate spheres. Therefore, celestial momentum, impetus, and mechanics involve properties of separate orders that are different from Kepler’s theory of gravity and universal gravitation, because there are many neutral gravity zones distributed throughout the cosmos. Otherwise all
the stars and planets would eventually collapse into each other, and into one heavy point of maximun density, and the point of no return would consume everything.
that one heavy collection point of collapse and maximum density, from the inexorable effects of universal gravitation, without neutral gravity zones, would have to be near the location of the Sun and its obscure companion foci, the invisible parallel point
that lies hidden in the mysterious Keplerian ellipse of blind destruction.
But, si vis est ardentior intus, if the power is greater within, it is better to find a way out, better
than the false disfigurement of the heliocentric ellipse, and to recognize the ranging circles instead, and starry circular tableau, not ellipses lost in the cosmos, like Newton and Kepler. Not the Keplerian ellipse of absurd abomination and chaos, not
the false scientific materialist ellipse of heliocentric annihilation, but the Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian
circle and sphere are better.
Kepler's second law, the law of equal areas, is wrong, in fact, for at least six reasons. First, the Earth is not moving, and it does not orbit the
Sun. Second, the center of the cosmos is not the Sun and some other invisible companion point in space but the Earth. The center of the cosmos is not two foci of an ellipse, and the Sun orbits the Earth. Only two planets, Venus and Mercury, orbit the Sun as
it orbits the Earth. Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are orbiting the Earth.
Thirdly, the law of equal areas itself contradicts the formulas for velocity, v = wr and d =
rt. All other things being equal, the simple rules of math are against Kepler's law of equal areas, since as the time wrapped up in the denominator of "w", Greek omega of v =wr, increases, then velocity and radius do not increase. On the other hand, as radius
increases velocity increases, and as velocity increases radius increases, all other things being equal, yet the time required to pass over a given area of space does not.
law of equal areas is not right for at least three more reasons. It contradicts the real East to West direction of the Moon around the Earth, as the Moon goes the same direction in its orbit as the other planets and stars of the ecliptic. Their common direction
is from East to West, clockwise around the Earth, when viewed from above the North pole; and when further away at apogee, the Moon loses fewer degrees to the ecliptic over time, and keeps up with the fixed stars and Saturn longer, for example, because it is
going faster and the same direction as they, not slower at apogee and the opposite direction. When closer to Earth at perigee, the Moon loses more degrees to the ecliptic over time, because it is going slower and the same direction around the Earth as
the fixed stars in the background, not faster at perigee and the opposite direction.
The fifth reason the law of equal areas is not correct is that gravity is not even a lateral
or vertical force, and not moving the planets and stars. Kepler developed his ideas of gravity in part from William Gilbert's theories of magnetism in "De Magnete". He believed that gravity was something like a powerful magnetic force that pushed and accelerated
things more when planets were closer to the Sun, and it affected them less when they were further away. He thought the planets were being driven around faster by the dominating mass and quasi-magnetic affect of the Sun, when closer to it, and slower when
further away. But gravity is not magnetic or electromagnetic any more than it is not innate to matter, and not detectable of any practical measure in physics at all. So-called heliocentric gravitation simply could not be the force driving the planets and stars around
the Earth ... from east to west ... every day.
The sixth reason his second law is wrong is that his third law, called the law of "cosmic harmony", "Harmonici Mundi", is
also mistaken. His third law is inverted, ex situ, still going the wrong way, and does not have any honest general application to celestial mechanics.
The key in all the mathematical
formulae sometimes thrown up around his third law is that among the planets, supposedly, the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit -- if it were ellipitcal. This would mean that the ratio of the squares
of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the Sun.
For example, (time of planet A)^2/(time of planet B)^2 = (distance
planet A)^3/(distance planet B)^3, e.g. P^2/P^2 = R^3/R^3 for any two planets.
However, if any two planets are examined, one will find that this law does not apply to any of them. For example,
if the Moon is planet A, and Saturn is planet B, the time period of the Moon's orbit is greater and Saturn's is less; yet the radius, the so-called "semi-major axis" distance, that is traveresed by Saturn is far greater and the Moon's is much less. These
ratios are not proportional by Kepler's calculations: rather they run the other way.
The seven traditional visible planets are orbiting the Earth anyway, with Venus and Mercury in weaves as they
orbit the Sun, which orbits the Earth. And Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are orbiting the Earth over a range of circles from their spheres like the Moon. The basic rule of thumb is that the lesser measure is the lesser force, also representing less extent, and
the planets that are closer to Earth have less radius and correspondingly slower and longer orbital periods. They go relatively slower the nearer they are to Earth. And less radius means less velocity, as v = wr. The times and distances of their orbits are
not all directly proportional to each other by P^2/P^2 = R^3/R^3. As in the example of the Moon for planet A and Saturn for planet B, the greater number in time over the lesser one in distance is not propotional by Kepler's equation to the lesser number in
time over the greater one in distance.
Rather the principle of cosmic harmony is that the 360 degrees of the ecliptic are composed of three crosses with the Earth at their
center. The twelve tropical signs of the ecliptic are in the form of three crosses with the Earth at the crux of them. The Earth is in between the six opposite signs and within the dome of all twelve at the same time, all the time. The only way that this can
be is if the Earth is at the center of the ecliptic.
The seven traditional planets, in contrast to Earth, are only ever in one sign at a time. None of the seven traditional visible planets or any
other star is ever in more than one sign at a time; and no other star is in all twelve and in between their six opposites all the time except the Earth. Clearly, the metaxological character and isometric panorma of the Earth are unique; and it is at the center
of the ecliptic and, therefore, also at the center of the cosmos, because there is always only one configuration of the ecliptic per time; and there is only one ecliptic in the cosmos, around which the Sun and the planets and the zodiac go. Rather the law
of cosmic harmony should be that the Earth is the mathematical sphere of equilibrium at the center of the cosmos and that divides all the signs.
6. From day one, the Copernican theory of the Sun as the immobile center of the cosmos was not really tenable, to anybody who considered it closely, but not until 1783 was a paper published on the "Motion
of the Solar System in Space", by William Hershcel, which helped to clarify again some of the basic background points. In the study, the proper motions of seven bright stars were carefully noted;
and it was shown that their movements in the intervening time cycles seemed to converge toward or around a fixed point, from which the sun also was always receding.
Every day in motion around
a curve, in the stellar horizon, and receding from the farthest end of the straight line that goes further and further straight-away into the distance, the uniform recession of the sun from the most distant points in the cosmos, that are straight-away
from it ad infinitum, and that are so far away from both it and the Earth, this phenomenon in fact is continuous and circular. As much as the horizon of the Earth does not just go straight away, but curves away, it is the same with the orbit of the Sun that
does not go flying away, but always around and around.
Thus the sun's movement in circles is continuous by the degrees, minutes, and seconds of
arc, from perigee to apogee, and distributed across a limited range of uniform curvature, around the earth. "Per singulos dies"(1), day by day, the sun's orbit is not zig zagging from place to place. Clearly, it orbits a stabilized point in space; and
as much as there is a circle with return, it happens that the point must also coincide with the Earth. The circular recession of the sun, even at apogee, from the points of the cosmos most distant from both it and the Earth has been longwise consistent. Within
the orbital curve, it recedes uniformly from the point of the cosmos most distant, that is along a straight line running away from both it and the earth; therefore, it must be that the sun orbits the earth, which in contrast is not in recession from any point of the cosmos.
"Ad astra atque de profundis est modo in rebus". To the stars and from the depths there is measure in things, not
merely an abstract jumble with nothing recognizable, and from here to the sun the depth of space is 3-D. Therefore, the extension in space that is the distance between Sun and Earth changes according to simple dimensions of width, height, or length; and if
the Sun moves anywhere, it always moves to the West as much.
Since the earth is a sphere, and it is apparent that the solar accumulation
passing along the line of width -- that runs from east to west over the horizon, between the sun and earth, and that does not go away -- is always accumulating uniformly, one to one, duo duo, then the preponderance of the sun's
progress in space is primary along the width of the line of motion that separates it from the earth.
In practical terms, the solar system represents the seven traditional
planets, the sun for chief, that orbit the Earth. Hershel's essay on the "Motion of the Solar System in Space" has been described as "a sublime speculation of genius realized by considerations of the utmost simplicity"; and it also provides an analysis
to help resettle the most basic point of the historical immobility of the Earth, in contrast to the Sun. Recognizing, therefore, the conclusive evidence of astronomy, that the solar system, including the Sun, is in motion, we must say that
the Sun does, in fact, orbit a point in space. It only is a matter of practical honesty then to admit that that unique point happens to coincide essentially with the locus of Earth.
every four hours the sun loses in cadence about .16438356164 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic, and almost as much to the distant stars. Every four hours it also progresses 60 degrees of its daily route around the earth. This is equivalent to 1/3 pi radians
of arc, 1/3pi(r), and marks out a curve proportionate to its distance from the earth. This incrementally uniform curve is equable to the third side of an equilateral triangle, the other two sides of which would be the first radius A and the second radius
B, from the earth to the sun over four hours.
For example, two sides, the radius A to the sun at 10:00 am, and the radius B to the sun at 2:00 pm, would equal the third side C, the straight line
through the marginal curve of orbit. The 1/3 pi radians, or 60 degrees of arc, from the field of solar transmission, covers the late morning to early afternoon. Every four hours inscribes the arc within a circle that would be equivalent to a side of an equilateral
triangle, composed between the sun and the earth, and a 24 hour day inscribes six of them.
This hexagonal and systematic circular pattern with return, forming six equilateral triangles, composed
within the circle of the ecliptic daily, demonstrates that the solar motion of the day is none other than what coincides with the sun going around the earth.
Heliocentrism, on the other hand, will
admit that the sun and the solar system are in motion, but they say that the sun is going six different speeds at once, which is impossible, and that it is moving towards a nonlocalized area in the vast distance of the comsos known as the "Great
Attractor". They say that the sun and the solar system are moving toward the Great Attractor, and that perhaps would be also somewhat around, but not exactly as in circles, of course, and no place in
the cosmos is authentically at rest.
Even for mere coincidence, this opinion is mathematically impossible and absurd. There already is an essential principle of logic and fullness existing in
the numerical terms themselves. Therefore, in the celestial geometry, it is better to admit quite simply that the sun evidently is orbiting the earth, and the earth is not moving.
If the sun was crated like a box kite, as it faces Earth, and its sides labeled A-F, with A the side facing earth, and B the opposite side away, C the top and D the bottom, and F its left side, and E its
right -- and if the earth was boxed likewise A-F, A the side facing the sun and B the opposite side away, C the North pole and D the South, and E Earth's right, as the earth faces the sun, and F its left -- before the sun makes any motion in "pitch"
or "yaw", that would be in its declination of altitude or length of separation from the earth, its movement is incrementally defined within the continuous ratio of the limit of width, +F(S) > (E)E-, that also separates the sun from
**F of the Sun > to > E* of the Earth, and the Sun reels around the Earth, hinc et inde ab extra, for an original field equation as the day is long. Not straightaway into the distance more than
from the East to the West, and over the hills it goes, edging into the west from the east. From the tropics in the seasons and from apogee to perigee, the rolling line that is its lateral motion in width is primary and defines its "pitch" and "yaw".
Everything has its time and place, and the sun follows a simple field of transmission around the earth, magnified in semi-circles from one side of the earth at a time, and then the other.
It can only go in one direction at a time, one speed at a time, in fact; and it always appears westward at the very least a little bit more than anywhere else for the minutes of progress in the day. Within the frame set by its left side first, "de
situ latere aristera", as it faces earth, the sun is always moving primarily to the west as much as anywhere else. A noteworthy fragment from an ancient Agricolan manuscript, found in an Etruscan tomb, reckoned the same, "de solis semper latere occidente
proxime accesit quam utres".
And "the figure of the circle attests to the perfection of bodies both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm. In the macrocosm, the greater bodies such as the heavens,
the sun, and the moon are round in shape. So also in man, who is a microcosm, the more noble members such as the head, the heart, and the eye are round in form." Though this image and pattern threaded in the universe, that comes back with return, and goes
around and around, at times is not yet complete, "if this figure is to be perfect as possible, the line of the universe must be curved into a circle."-2
And it is obvious that the Moon is as natural
as the sun in appearance, so that it does not seem to be off-centered or off-kilter, within its circle, and not orbiting the Earth like an ellipse either. Like the Sun, the Moon is always exactly one radius measure away from the Earth and traveling around
it one speed at a time, where the speed and radial distance of the Moon in its circuits around the Earth correspond to each other one to one, in space and astro-weather, in single steps within circles: one place, one rank, one file at a time.
Even if it were exclusively a matter of philosophical preference, to be able to choose reality the way one wants it, Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Biblical authors all made the wiser and more mathematically accurate
choice. The moon orbits the Earth within a distributed range of uniform curvature, as a range of circles not an ellipse, as much as the Earth is a sphere of perfect vanishing flatness, not an oblate spheroid. If seeing is believing and a picture
is worth a 1,000 words, all long exposure star trail photography convincingly makes the case also, and, therefore, that Kepler's first law is also mistaken.
Each of the Moon’s orbits circles around in four quarters, and it never goes from perigee to apogee within the range of one quartered division. From any horizon to midheaven, from any one quarter section point to the next
quarter section point, it never runs the limit from perigee to apogee there; therefore, the probability that the Moon’s orbital paths around the Earth are in the form of an ellipse is nil, since the ellipse would have to be in each of the quarter sections.
"Let observation with extensive view, survey mankind from China to Peru; remark each anxious toil, each eager strife, and watch the busy scenes of crowded life" ... and the aspects of the Moon vis-a-vis the
Earth are in stereo around the clock, and the quarter sections define the orbit one circle at a time. With uniform curvature over the passage of time, and from quarter to quarter, the Moon ebbs and flows in circles around the Earth, as all long exposure star
trail photography shows. Every four sections divides around 6 hours and 12 or 13 minutes, and it never ranges from perigee to apogee in any of those limited times, and never within one orbit. Therefore, it circles the Earth from perigee to apogee over
an extended series of orbits, not in an ellipse.
A dabbler in arcana and strange signs, Kepler entertained occult ideas about the sun, the moon, and the cosmos, and added
to the development of the unscientific notions of universal gravitation and occult action-at-a-distance that would become so pivotal for Newton. With no explainable or practical scientific connections, no applied mechanics for demonstration, they irresponsibly
postulated occult forces exercising powerful and vastly spooky actions-at-a-distance.
After Copernicus, Kepler added the next stamp for heliocentrism, with his confusing theories of the ellipse;
and ironically, the Keplerian system contradicted Copernicus on almost every point. He altered Copernicus’s basic theory and kept only the two most general axioms: that the sun was "at" or "toward" the immovable center of the cosmos,
and that the Earth rotates and revolves around it. In Kepler's cosmology, however, the center was not only the sun, but the sun and a companion foci, which was a little bit more vague.
permanently changed the context of the Copernican center and taught that the Sun was merely one of two foci that shared the middle probability, rather; and that the Earth, of course, was a “wandering star”, a planet like the other planets,
as they all orbited the Sun and its mysterious companion foci in ellipses.
Kepler believed that the fixed stars as well were orbiting the sun and this other parallel foci, which did
not correspond to any real discernible body or specific mass in space but was only an invisible point. These two foci, the sun and the invisible point it supposedly shares to create the “gravity” to push and pull the planets and stars around, according
to Kepler, composed the center of the ecliptic and the cosmos, and they became the two-point basis of his theory of the ellipse and the "magnetic" occult action-at-a-distance that would be called “gravity”.
Adding a second focal point parallel to the sun resembled in a way Philolaus the Pythagorean's postulate of a Second Earth, since it was not for scientific observation but arcane allusion. In spite of appearances, heliocentric theory
would chase two rabbits to be better than one, but he who chases two rabbits catches neither.
"Isse qui sequitur duos lepores, nutrum capit", and all long exposure star trail photography
clearly shows that the moon, planets, and stars are orbiting the Earth in circles, and Kepler's theory of the ellipse is mistaken.
of circles not an ellipse, from perigee to apogee, and the moon is in one place at a time, one speed at a time, one circular orbit at a time. The circles may range gradually in ranks and files, from one circle at a time to the next, back and forth over
many orbits, within sometimes ascending and sometimes descending radius, and for the nodes, etc. Perigee and apogee represent the extremes of the Moon’s range, not the axes of an ellipse; and besides this, Venus’s patterns around the Sun make the
sign of a pentagram, and Mercury’s patterns around the Sun make the sign of a hexagram; and what pentagram or hexagram is better set in an ellipse rather than in a circle?
And a "big bang", which represents
random chance, could not have given rise to the celestial spheres and circles.