Gerald Kelleher wrote:

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 9:20:29 PM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:


http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...July%202010-Ja
nuary%202012.jpg

The dovetailing between orbital perspectives and timekeeping and
specifically proof of the Earth's annual circuit of the Sun is founded on
the transition from an evening to a morning appearance of the stars close
to the orbital plane or the faster moving Venus and Mercury.

I cannot imagine any adult being unable to make the call on the transition
of the stars from an evening to morning appearance due solely to the
orbital motion of the Earth. As a location passes through the circle of
illumination it sees all objects to the left of the Sun so that when an
observer continues to rotate they exit the circle of illumination and see
the stars and celestial objects to the right of the Sun.

This is utterly incomprehensible - and I seriously doubt it's because
English is my second language. If you can rephrase to readable English I
could possibly figure out if I agree with you. But I guess not.

"dovetailing"?
"circle of illumination"?
"direct/retrogrades resolution"?





Here, let me help you with the English language -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dovetailing

I know that, but i fail to see what that has to do with "orbital
perspectives and timekeeping " &c. And in this context.
Or is it just a figure of speech? That would elude me.


Let me help you also with the circle of illumination representing the
circle at right angles to the orbital plane

So instead of rephrasing you tell me how to use Google. Cute.
That's not patronizing at all.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=circle+of+illumination

OK. I should have figured that one out, but I still can't see what
you´re getting at. You are confusing the evening/morning appearances,
which is an annual variation with the daily sunrise/sunset.

Evening/morning appearances (of stars) *are* due to orbital motion,
while sunrise/sunset ("entering/exiting the circle of illumination" in
your words) Is entirely due to earth's rotation. We all know that.

fail to see where your view differs from the rest of us.
You just use different words in long twisted sentences that defy
comprehension. Then you whine about people not agreeing.

But let's see: When a location enters the circle of illumination (i.e.
sunrise) it doesn't see any object to the left of the Sun, as they would
be below the horison. Unless you live down under.
(Left and ríght are not very good descriptors here...)

And they certainly won't reappear to the right of the Sun at sunset
(the location exits the circle of illumination), unless you refer to
circumpolar objects due north of the Sun.

I think you got lost in your own words. Go figure...


Direct/retrograde motions are for astronomers who can now distinguish how
we see the faster moving planets from the slower moving planets as seen
from a moving Earth.

Commom knowledge. But that's not what I asked about.
You talk about "direct/retrogrades resolution". What is that?

Illusory open-ended loops of the slower planets where the Sun is never the
center of the loop -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120809.html

Actual loop of the faster planets where the Sun is always at the center -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...July%202010-Ja
nuary%202012.jpg

Nothing new there - but I would call that illustration an actual loop.

Any more dull people who need English or astronomical lessons ?.

Yes. You! And you definitely need to improve your teaching skills.

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour