On May 21, 5:54 pm, "Paul Buglass"
wrote:
Hi Gerald,

Hope you are well?


As a person who has known the oceans of this world,I can feel that
sense of loss of the burning of the Cutty Sark yet nobody ever feels
the loss of an entire astronomical tradition but I assure you I
do.Regardless,I am left to deal with the matter technically and must
set aside the insults directed towards me notwithstanding that all I
am doing is presenting a heritage that exists through the texts of the
original authors such as Copernicus and Huygens allied with modern
imaging.In this respect,I am the most modern of astronomers in my
attempt to use as many images as possible to carry my points or rather
carry the accurate astronomical working principles.

I am not made of stone,the delicate sense of an astronomer is as keen
as any person alive and this makes it all the more painful to contend
with minds that do not grasp just how fragile and fleeting existence
is before the scale and majesty of the great astronomical cycles,in
which case an astronomer is not just a commentator of the cycles but
also a participator in these cycles.In short,astronomy is not just an
optical experience but one which develops the intutive intelligence to
appreciate how the cycles make existence possible hence astronomy is
as much an exercise of the day rather than an observational hobby at
night.

I do not apologise for my poor presentation and grammer ,I am
delighted that I will never be proposed as a human model of clarity
however it is not intentional but rather a consequence of trying to
condense so much work for a hostile audience who can simply walk away
when it suits.

How am I ?, sore from the absence of astronomers to talk to and who
can do a better job than I can in restoring an astronomical heritage
from being solely an exercise in magnification








Do you work for BT Ireland in Dublin by any chance?


No


It's just I've seen your posts here over the last few years, (very
interesting by the way, but I can't claim to understand what it is you're
trying to enlighten us about), and I saw there was someone wth your name
working for BT in Dublin, at least there was a year or so ago.


Last year I worked in Northern Norway where you can see first hand why
there needs to be an enormous astronomical modification to the reasons
for global climate and hemispherical weather patterns otherwise known
as the seasons.The idea of using axial tilt to explain the seasons or
variations in inclination is incredible considering that it leads to
the idea the the Sun's apparent motion expressed as solar inclination
is responsible for the seasons.To kill two birds with the one
stone,you have Anthony here and his 17th century analemma hoax trying
to explain the same thing -

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

These people are entirely serious in keeping the 'circle of
illumination' straight and varying the axial orientation of the Earth
or rather giving the Earth an annual 23 1/2 degree axial
precession.In an era where in is crucial to determine the exact cause
of the seasons and consequently the correct astronomical background
for global climate,everything is expressed in terms of the apparent
motion and position of the Sun against the horizon as Pete here tries
to explain the shadow cast by Venus by framing it in astrological
terms.



I was just wondering if it was you? If it was you, maybe you can try and
explain your points face to face over a pint on my next trip to Dublin?

Cheers


Astronomy is about developing your intutive intelligence and Pascal
is correct is determining the near impossibility of explaining things
to people who need step by step explanations -

" But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do
not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and
plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well
inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of
intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They
are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the
greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of
themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous
that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them,
and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for
the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in
mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same
way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We
must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal





--

Paul B, York, UK.

"oriel36" wrote in message

oups.com...



On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN wrote:

Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?

Austin

Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
Jupiter or any of the other planets.

So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?

Austin

The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.They are
resolved by an orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars,transits
take care of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth and
apparent retrogrades are resolved by a faster orbitally moving Earth -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...loop_tezel.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

The apparent motions of the planets are always taken in context of
orbital comparisons ,at least by real astronomers,and not axial
rotation applied to the position of planets.

"If there was ever any doubt it was caused by sky glow, the motion of
the shadow caused by the apparent motion of Venus in the sky has
eliminated this" Pete

To link the motion of a shadow to the apparent motion of a planet may
get you a pat on the back from astrologers but it is about as far
away from the heights of Western astronomy as it is possible to
get,not just Copernican heliocentricity but Ptolemaic astronomy as
well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -