On May 22, 12:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 wrote:

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

snip



True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.

I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
difference between apparent motions and true motions.

The only cartwheels I do is when I nail successfully a target (or
concept) so that my to-do list has one less entry outstanding.


I am delighted that you are now an openly unapologetic astrologer and
safely conversant with the constellational framework as part of your
'targeting' and photographic endeavor.

I give you that project to do using ameridian line and a clock to
determine that the analemma is a 17 th century hoax for those who
know no better,sort of a giant astronomical Piltdown man if you like.





Now, to add insult to injury, I will be starting a project next month
that will have YOU doing cartwheels. Seriously. ;-)


If there were astronomers here they would have questions about why the
set values in the Equation of Time tables supplied by Huygens
differs from the modern tables -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ex...n_of_time.html

It is nearly impossible to believe ,at least after reading Huygen's
treatise,that successful people would believe that clocks keep pace
with axial rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds through a 360
degree cycle .

There is only one correlation between the axial cycle,clocks and
terrestrial longitudes and the value is exactly 24 hours/360
degrees.Up to a point unfamiliarity with the principles is acceptable
but then the situation shades off into the dominance of astrologers
and astrology due to inaction to address the single greatest known
error ever to be inflicted on humanity.

There is no satisfaction putting physicists and astrophotographers in
their place,it is the absence of genuine astronomers that makes it
disappointing and especially in this era where images and texts are
availible to appreciate the magnificent thinking of real astronomers.

What type of telescope did Copernicus and Kepler have ?,that's
right,you do not need one to be an astronomer.












The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -

snip

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -