> No.

> : "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
> : equation of time.  For the natural days are truly unequal, though they
> : are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
> : astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
> : celestial motions." Principia

> It's not as if Newton is the first to relate the EoT to the actual motions
> of the planets.  Once you've deduced the earth's orbit, and realize that
> the stars (other than the sun, since you like to pretend it doesn't
> already mean that) are very far away, the EoT follows.  Something evel
> Keppler, or even Copernicus, would have been well aware of.

> You can pretend it's all Newton's fault for being a nasty empericist,
> but your seeming hero Copernicus was also an empericist, and also
> deduced the actual physical motions from the apparent motions of
> things in the sky.

> If you really want to give up "deducing the celestial motions",
> you're back to geocentrism, and crystal orbs.

> : I read Isaac like a newspaper

> Well there's your problem.  You should be reading it with some
> attention to mathematics and physics, and not as if it contained
> the news of the day and some human insterest stories.