View Single Post
  #17  
Old October 28th 17, 10:15 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The First Known Interstellar Comet

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 12:56:01 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 7:20:40 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:31:14 AM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 27 October 2017 09:37:49 UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 12:36:46 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
Just because you think that you were the first to recognize this material does not mean you were, you were simply late to the party.

... and in fact Gerald still does not understand retrogrades of the inferior planets even as well as Hipparchus did. When shown the actual path of Venus against the background stars, he does not believe it.

Hipparchus was probably a genius.

The troll known as '1461' has severe, long term, mental health problems and would not, knowingly, admit to anything recognized by science.

The denser they are the greater their belief in themselves.
Always the Napoleon. Never the orderly.
This dunce could not light a fire under science even with two sticks.

... and a stopwatch...


You stoop to that guy and perhaps I have thought more of you than I should.

For whatever reason you have a mental block when it comes to putting the 24 hour day in order with its subdivisions of hours,minutes and seconds. This allowed accurate clocks to be developed for determining separation using the correlation of 1 hour time difference equating to 15 degrees geographical separation even when the distance reduces across latitudes.

I could go to great lengths in talking about the need for meridian lines which serve the terrestrial based reference and the stationary Sun as the line passes in front of the Sun and midway either side of the circle of illumination (noon) but somehow when you all have it in your heads to ignore the actual reference systems and the great people who's work will eventually shine through.

Again, you lowered yourself Paul when responding to that noisebox so you must be genuinely desperate.


Gerald, no matter what you say or think, a star returns to 2 sticks every 23 56 04. Just about everyone knows this, and we define this as a Sidereal Day. Even you can make this measurement for yourself. for it is incontrovertible. What is your own interpretation of this easily verifiable measurement?


The 24 hour weekday is a product of very specific references which require the alignment of two shadows created by two foreground sticks denoting a longitude meridian that runs from pole to pole -

" Draw a Meridian line upon a floor (the manner of doing which is sufficiently known; and note, that the utmost exactness herein is not necessary and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly ) you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table" Huygens

https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

This average 24 hour day creates the timekeeping divisions of hours,minutes and seconds and a clock registers the constant pace of each. They originally calibrated clocks to the return of a star to two foreground points in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds however the observation using two sticks doesn't require a reference to the planet's rotation or longitudes (Lat/Long system) and is homocentric in nature where the stars whirl in a celestial sphere motion around the individual. Watch the motion of a Goto telescope as it swivels around its own individual axis and that is homocentricity . Correlating the timekeeping period and stellar circumpolar motion to constant daily rotation (RA/Dec) is truly awful.