On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud wrote:
I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.

I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.

Austin

Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here

http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent

I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
"Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
perceived, or understood"

This may be where he is getting confused...

Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
"obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
the parched fields).

"In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"

L

--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.

"These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
think?"...Valerie Emmanuel

Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA

You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.

Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.


If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative ,as Kepler meant it,is 'intutive intelligence'
and when your astrophotographic stars try to make stupid correlations
in front of a real astronomer the result is that they disappear when
they are told about the physical considerations involved in their
notions.

Take away your telescopes and you are outright astrologers.