On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 11:17:03 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 9:14:25 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

It doesn't matter where on the Earth you are, Sirius will go from an evening appearance to a morning appearance or from left to right of the central Sun just as the inner planets are seen to move from an evening appearance to a dawn appearance due to their faster orbital motion -

Well, if you lived within 16 degrees of the north pole, Sirius won't rise at all for you, ever, so this claim of yours is an empty one!


You can have that one .




If you live in a more reasonable location, Sirius will rise twice on one day each year... what do you suppose this indicates?


Like Collins you can't extract yourself from daily rising/settings and reference the stars to the Stationary Sun. The new soft program will take into account that the orbital motion of the Earth causes the stars to transition from an evening appearance (left) to a morning appearance (right) so what the ancient astronomers were seeing when they saw Sirius rise with the Sun for the first time in weeks was actually a consequence of the orbital motion of the Earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

When I talk about brief glimpse of the new software, this is what I mean as there is no daily rising and settings involved as the stellar transition of stars parallel to the orbital plane is as valid a proof for the Earth's orbital motion as direct/retrograde motions once were.





http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/mrst.php

Go to "Form B", for 'number of days' enter 365, for 'Celestial object of interest' scroll down to Sirius, for location enter 'Dublin' for example,
and hit 'compute data'. After the results are shown, scroll down to October 2nd, where you will find that, from Dublin, Sirius rose at 1 minute after midnight on Tuesday, October 2nd, and then rose again on the same day, October 2nd, at 3 minutes before midnight (and therefore just before October 3rd)... which, it seems, indicates that Sirius will rise 366 times each year. This fact, all by itself, should cause your head to explode!


I understand what you are trying to do as the Ra/Dec clockwork solar system is the only one you know. You can still keep it for your magnification hobby but what you cannot do is use it to model the motions of the Earth, solar system structure , extrapolate effects for terrestrial science from the motions of the Earth and many,many other things.






There must be some logical explanation for this, right? Perhaps the US Naval Observatory is just making this up, or has made a horrible error of some kind... or maybe you are just uneducated enough not to know this, and are just too stubborn to even try to learn about sidereal time.


Now, now Paul, this is not sci.physics.relativity where everyone eats one another as they dance to a tune that is anachronistic these days. The big organizations like NASA and the Naval Observatory are working with a timekeeping framework that renders observations into the familiar calendar format and this format by its very nature is a dating format for astronomical events that does not equate one year with one orbital circuit of the Sun as 3 years have 365 days/rotations in them and 1 year has 366 days/rotations in it.. The new software programs will effectively subtract any daily rotational components leaving researchers to model observations based on the orbital motion of the Earth alone in a Sun centered system. It will also free up the additional rotation which can be isolated through the Polar day/night cycle.









It is exactly like Neil deGrasse Tyson says...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...ut-science.jpg

At some point in time, I hope you decide that astronomers are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, because the fact of the matter is they are as intelligent as people in any branch of science of your choosing, and the sooner you recognize this, the better.

Right now, you have no clue, you just don't know what you don't know.

You and everyone else here were brought up with the only show in town, in this case a rotating celestial sphere setup inherited from the late 17th century. I am easy with your desire to stay with this system even if it is meaningless for making sense of (even modelling) observations seen from a moving Earth or my own personal affection for terrestrial sciences and how the motions of the Earth influence them.

Fair dues to you, you state your case well and don't put words in my mouth and I can't ask for any more than that.