Planets Gather on May 5 and May 17, 2000

Hi there,
Debugging calendrically driven star globes is astronomical.
I am not interested in little bugs, just the gross misconduct sort.
Vice-presidents heads should roll.
Thank you,
Tony Lance


oriel36 wrote:

Oh this is too funny ! -
"So, you're having a conniption over a minor discrepancy in an obscure
document that will be read by very few, about an event that is
irrelevant to almost everyone and that will be forgotten in 72 hours?
The temptation to ask whether you have a life is overcome by the fear
you might actually tell me about it. "

'Perturbation theory' is a child of the observed discrepancies that
would occur using the calendrically driven equatorial coordinate
system (observational convenience) ,the correct solution is to spot
the difference between a system of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes and
the Ra/ Dec convenience of 365/366 days.I will even show you the price
of introducing the astrological facility which makes your GoTo
telescopes possible -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension

Although it is enjoyable reading those posts from 8 years
ago ,technically they are sub-geocentric or rather astrological in
nature.Isn't it amazing how much people have learned within the last
few years and that finally most are coming to terms with the fact that
they are talented astrophotographers but not astronomers ?.



On Nov 1, 7:04�pm, wrote:
Hi there,
I was having a look at the daylight event in 2675 AD, given in the
Planets Gather posting.

On Nov 2, 6:54*pm, wrote:
Hi there,
Debugging calendrically driven star globes is astronomical.

Well at least you are partly honest but it still amounts to astrology.

A little distressing to realize that with actual time lapse footage
available to present a new explanation for the second most immediate
effect after the day/night cycle (i.e. the Seasons) and it is ignored
but that it what happens when humanity is exposed to large and
prolonged doses of astrology.

I know longer believe it is gross misconduct,just people trying their
best with a limited,albeit an astrological,point of view.

Thank you too and good luck





I am not interested in little bugs, just the gross misconduct sort.
Vice-presidents heads should roll.
Thank you,
Tony Lance


oriel36 wrote:
Oh this is too funny ! -
"So, you're having a conniption over a minor discrepancy in an obscure
document that will be read by very few, about an event that is
irrelevant to almost everyone and that will be forgotten in 72 hours?
The temptation to ask whether you have a life is overcome by the fear
you might actually tell me about it. "

'Perturbation theory' is a child of the observed discrepancies that
would occur using the calendrically driven equatorial coordinate
system (observational convenience) ,the correct solution is to spot
the difference between a system of 365 *days 5 hours *49 minutes and
the Ra/ Dec convenience of 365/366 days.I will even show you the price
of introducing the *astrological facility which makes your GoTo
telescopes possible -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension

Although it is enjoyable reading those posts from 8 years
ago ,technically they are sub-geocentric or rather astrological in
nature.Isn't it amazing how much people have learned within the last
few years and that finally most are coming to terms with the fact that
they are talented astrophotographers but not astronomers ?.

On Nov 1, 7:04 pm, wrote:
Hi there,
I was having a look at the daylight event in 2675 AD, given in the
Planets Gather posting.

Hi there,
Please let me pick my own targets. The guys who did the mathematics
and wrote the computer
software are all astronomers to a man. Planetariums use software,
including solar system
presentations, at any date and time. These are all primary uses and
astronomical.
You have already said that astrophotographers use them.
My science is by intention mainstream.
Politics makes poor science.
Thank you,
Tony Lance



oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 2, 6:54�pm, wrote:
Hi there,
Debugging calendrically driven star globes is astronomical.

Well at least you are partly honest but it still amounts to astrology.

On Nov 3, 6:36*pm, wrote:
Hi there,
Please let me pick my own targets. The guys who did the mathematics
and wrote the computer
software are all astronomers to a man.

I am afraid not,they are astrologers by virtue of the framework they
use ,specifically this one -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Worse still,when astrologers try to venture into orbital specifics
they keep a location orbitally fixed to the central Sun in order to
justify constellational reasoning -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIT0.JPG

Even when actual time lapse footage can be presented to demonstrate
that a planet has an intrinsic 360 degree component where all
locations turn slowly with respect to the central Sun and take an
entire orbit to do so,they still cannot make that basic interpretation
based on two separate 360 degree motions,again, intrinsic to the
planet with respect to the Sun.

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...2529-1_800.jpg









*Planetariums use software,
including solar system
presentations, at any *date and time. These are all primary uses and
astronomical.

What they use is an Ra/Dec observational convenience tied to a
magnification exercise, where all motions are reduced to the calendar
system,I would not expect many to know the difference but there is a
huge price to pay for the equatorial coordinate system that emerged in
the late 17th century.If there were astronomers,they would at least
see that something does not work or fit,I just happen to know exactly
what went wrong,where,why is is extremely bad to the point of a
catastrophy and how modern imaging exposes and resolves most of the
problems.



You have already said that astrophotographers use them.
My science is by intention mainstream.

Which happens to be astrological and enjoy it as such.

Politics makes poor science.

When somebody said that if you move faster,the whole Universe will
alter for you (relativity) it should have signalled a scramble to find
out what went wrong instead of what occurred for the last 100
years.Politics,I can tell you all about politics but nothing prepares
a person for sub-human reasoning that spawns so much utter nonsense in
the name of astronomy and it all began with what would have been a
harmless if silly endeavor to chain the celestial arena to terrestrial
longitudes and the calendar system.Now we have a bunch of programmers
and guys with magnifying equipment who think they are astronomers !.

I





Thank you,
Tony Lance


oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:54 pm, wrote:
Hi there,
Debugging calendrically driven star globes is astronomical.

Well at least you are partly honest but it still amounts to astrology.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

snip

Even when actual time lapse footage can be presented to demonstrate
that a planet has an intrinsic 360 degree component where all
locations turn slowly with respect to the central Sun and take an
entire orbit to do so,they still cannot make that basic interpretation
based on two separate 360 degree motions,again, intrinsic to the
planet with respect to the Sun.

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...2529-1_800.jpg

Rotational axes--i.e., the direction of an angular momentum
vector--remains fixed only in relation to the most distant parts of
the universe. If one chooses a reference frame other than "the fixed
stars," then yes, one may discover an apparent rotation of a planet's
angular momentum vector as it orbits its star.

Is there an advantage in doing that?

The principle of Galilean relativity has not been found wanting
outside of the domain more properly addressed by special and general
relativity (velocity approaching c and/or spacetime curvature 0). As
such, both the geocentric and the heliocentric views produce
equivalent predictions that agree very well with observation. Given
two equivalent views--one replete with epicyclic fiddly bits and the
other elegantly simple--why should one favor the more complicated of
the two?
--
Dave

Hi Gerald and Dave,
In defense of my astronomy.

I am not into self-fulfilling prophecy.
I use tables, which are not approved of.
I use one refernce point for an orbit, so two is not a problem.
The eleventh commandment for programming is not to make assumptions.
I do not stick labels on people.
I cannot debug a program subjectively, only objectively.
My conclusions are what I find, not confirmation of what I was looking
for.
My stuff is on a take it or leave it basis.
Scientific cartoons may or may not work.
Please do not feel the need to believe a word I say.
Religion makes poor science.
Thank you,
Tony Lance


Dave Typinski wrote:

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

On Nov 3, 8:35*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0800 (PST), oriel36

wrote:

snip



Even when actual time lapse footage can be presented to demonstrate
that a planet has an intrinsic 360 degree component where all
locations turn slowly with respect to the central Sun and take an
entire orbit to do so,they still cannot make that basic interpretation
based on two separate 360 degree motions,again, intrinsic to the
planet with respect to the Sun.

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...9/dn12529-1_80...

Rotational axes--i.e., the direction of an angular momentum
vector--remains fixed only in relation to the most distant parts of
the universe.

Empirical junk ! nothing more and nothing less,if these guys and the
wider population want to know what actually causes the seasonal
variations in daylight and darkness they need only to talk and think
like reasonable people. I will take baby steps so even you can
appreciate what occurs -

What causes day and night ? - The answer to that one is daily
rotation,I will even show you what it looks like from space -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VWM0XswwGg

The whole planet is turning and that turning generates an orientation
-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4z1_...eature=related

The relative latitudinal motions therefore keep that rotational
orientation fixed -

http://www.robertreeves.com/star_tra...06_9pm-6am.jpg

Now,have you this much clear in your head - daily rotation causes the
day and night cycle and does nothing else.

To keep the rotational orientation fixed in one direction,the planet
has to orbit the Sun in a specific way and that is where the images
and time lapse footage of Uranus comes in -

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...2529-1_800.jpg

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

An intelligent person already has it clear in his head that daily
rotation generates the day and night cycle and does nothing else,he
can see at the Equator of Uranus that no seasonal variations in
daylight/darkness would occur just as on Earth yet he can also
discern the motion of the Equatorial ring as it changes its
orientation to the central Sun.That is a separate 360 degree motion
with respect to the Sun and intrinsic,do you hear,intrinsic to the
planet itself as an extension of orbital motion.

So,what causes the seasons, daily rotation and a slow orbital turning
of a location with respect to the central Sun where both are 360
degree motions intrinsic to the planet itself.



*If one chooses a reference frame other than "the fixed
stars," then yes, one may discover an apparent rotation of a planet's
angular momentum vector as it orbits its star.

Is there an advantage in doing that?

The principle of Galilean relativity has not been found wanting
outside of the domain more properly addressed by special and general
relativity (velocity approaching c and/or spacetime curvature 0). As
such, both the geocentric and the heliocentric views produce
equivalent predictions that agree very well with observation. *Given
two equivalent views--one replete with epicyclic fiddly bits and the
other elegantly simple--why should one favor the more complicated of
the two?

Relativity is the symptom of a disease and I have actually treated the
root cause of that disease which precedes the empirical agenda by a
few years.When the dust settled,Newton's agenda is little more than a
calendrically driven clockwork solar system based on an astrological
framework created by John Flamsteed -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension

These eyes have seen quite a lot as the destruction of astronomy is
played out in the texts and in premises and conclusions which were
brought in around the late 17th century.I can safely say that most if
not all of the damage can be undone with modern imaging and correct
interpretations by people who actually like astronomy over and above a
magnification exercise that takes place at night.

Relativity is nothing more that an extension of an illegal choice
Newton give himself with respect to the main argument for resolving
observed motions of the planets -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

I can give you a new explanation for the seasons because I have spent
many years referencing the Earth's motions to the other planets and to
the central Sun while astrologers with their idiotic 'relativistic'
premises and conclusions are stuck referencing the Earth's motions to
the following geometric mess

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

When you can handle the two main motions of the Earth with respect to
the Sun and easily explain how seasonal daylight/darkness come about
then perhaps you may earn the title of astronomer but not tonight.







--
Dave

On Nov 3, 12:05*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Worse still,when astrologers try to venture into orbital specifics
they keep a location orbitally fixed to the central Sun in order to
justify constellational reasoning -

Even when actual time lapse footage can be presented to demonstrate
that a planet has an intrinsic 360 degree component where all
locations turn slowly with respect to the central Sun and take an
entire orbit to do so,they still cannot make that basic interpretation
based on two separate 360 degree motions,again, intrinsic to the
planet with respect to the Sun.

Since you support heliocentric astronomy and not geocentric astronomy,
I must assume you do not mean that the Sun goes around the Earth and
at the same time the Sun goes around Uranus. But that's almost what it
sounds like to us, which is why it is so hard to figure out what you
_do_ mean.

John Savard

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:16:00 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

On Nov 3, 8:35*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0800 (PST), oriel36

wrote:

snip
Even when actual time lapse footage can be presented to demonstrate
that a planet has an intrinsic 360 degree component where all
locations turn slowly with respect to the central Sun and take an
entire orbit to do so,they still cannot make that basic interpretation
based on two separate 360 degree motions,again, intrinsic to the
planet with respect to the Sun.

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...9/dn12529-1_80...

Rotational axes--i.e., the direction of an angular momentum
vector--remains fixed only in relation to the most distant parts of
the universe.

Empirical junk!

I don't know of anything better upon which to base my view of reality.
If you do not accept the primacy of emprical measurement over
philosphy when it comes to describing the universe in a fashion suited
to useful prediction, then we're at an insurmountable impasse.

snip
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Cool animation. Thanks for the link!

When you can handle the two main motions of the Earth with respect to
the Sun and easily explain how seasonal daylight/darkness come about
then perhaps you may earn the title of astronomer but not tonight.

Astronomer? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
you think it means. (with apologies to Inigo Montoya)
--
Dave

On Nov 4, 10:29*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:16:00 -0800 (PST), oriel36



wrote:

On Nov 3, 8:35*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0800 (PST), oriel36

wrote:

snip
Even when actual time lapse footage can be presented to demonstrate
that a planet has an intrinsic 360 degree component where all
locations turn slowly with respect to the central Sun and take an
entire orbit to do so,they still cannot make that basic interpretation
based on two separate 360 degree motions,again, intrinsic to the
planet with respect to the Sun.

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...9/dn12529-1_80....

Rotational axes--i.e., the direction of an angular momentum
vector--remains fixed only in relation to the most distant parts of
the universe.

Empirical junk!

I don't know of anything better upon which to base my view of reality.

These are simple observations,they require nothing more than basic
reasoning yet involve some of the largest experienced effects known
such as why there will be less daylight for some people,more for
others while no difference is experienced at the Equator.


If you do not accept the primacy of emprical measurement over
philosphy when it comes to describing the universe in a fashion suited
to useful prediction, then we're at an insurmountable impasse.


There is no impasse.


snip

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...tion_stars_sun...

Cool animation. *Thanks for the link!

When you can handle the two main motions of the Earth with respect to
the Sun and easily explain how seasonal daylight/darkness come about
then perhaps you may earn the title of astronomer but not tonight.

Astronomer? *You keep using that word. *I do not think it means what
you think it means. *(with apologies to Inigo Montoya)
--
Dave


If you cannot handle technical details I would have nothing to gain by
commenting further,I already know what you believe and how it is
astrologically based but this does not help matters insofar as I have
done my time going through what went wrong and where but the task of
finding reasonable people is far more challenging than I first
thought.There is no bottom to the intellectual descent in order to
find a ground where productive work is accomplished so I set the
standard at this new explanation for what causes variations in
daylight/darkness,with modern imaging to make it easy and 100%
verifiable you would know if you are an astrologer or not by the
ability or inability to grasp just how major that modification is.