Astronomical coordinates

Please give the formulae for converting from celestial coordinates to
heliocentric.
Thanks.

Jake wrote:
Please give the formulae for converting from celestial coordinates to
heliocentric.
Thanks.

Jake,
If you are an Einstein subscriber, and apply c=c+v to radar ranging of
the sun,(sic planets)
the astronomical unit varies up to 274,000kms whether measured at dawn
(radar approaching sun) or dusk (retreating).
Chances are, whatever replies you get on this, if so analysed will be
WRONG!

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html

Jim G
c'=c+v

Jake wrote:
Please give the formulae for converting from celestial coordinates to
heliocentric.
Thanks.

Jake,
If you are an Einstein subscriber, and apply c=c+v to radar ranging of
the sun,(sic planets)
the astronomical unit varies up to 274,000kms whether measured at dawn
(radar approaching sun) or dusk (retreating).
Chances are, whatever replies you get on this, if so analysed will be
WRONG!

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html

Jim G
c'=c+v

In message .com,
writes

Jake wrote:
Please give the formulae for converting from celestial coordinates to
heliocentric.
Thanks.

Jake,
If you are an Einstein subscriber, and apply c=c+v to radar ranging of
the sun,(sic planets)
the astronomical unit varies up to 274,000kms whether measured at dawn
(radar approaching sun) or dusk (retreating).
Chances are, whatever replies you get on this, if so analysed will be
WRONG!

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html

Jim G
c'=c+v

And just what has your fantasy to do with the original post, troll?
Plonk.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message .com,
writes

Jake wrote:
Please give the formulae for converting from celestial coordinates to
heliocentric.
Thanks.

Jake,
If you are an Einstein subscriber, and apply c=c+v to radar ranging of
the sun,(sic planets)
the astronomical unit varies up to 274,000kms whether measured at dawn
(radar approaching sun) or dusk (retreating).
Chances are, whatever replies you get on this, if so analysed will be
WRONG!

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html

Jim G
c'=c+v

And just what has your fantasy to do with the original post, troll?
Plonk.

You do not use the astronomical unit for measuring between coordinates?
You do not care, that the unit of measurement varies?(when analysed per
AE ism)
You do not care what the air quality is, as long as your head remains
safely and securely up Einsteins arse?

Jim G
c'=c+v

JRS: In article .com
, dated Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:07:24 local, seen in news:sci.astro,
posted :

If you are an Einstein subscriber, and apply c=c+v to radar ranging of
the sun,(sic planets)
the astronomical unit varies up to 274,000kms whether measured at dawn
(radar approaching sun) or dusk (retreating).

Since the Astronomical Unit is defined as the *mean* distance between
earth and sun, your conclusion would be wrong even if your speed
argument were otherwise correct, which it is not.

The definition does not depend on the measurement method.

Moreover, ISTR that the AU is not determined by ranging the Sun (which
has a rather uncertain surface well away from its middle) but by ranging
other planets, such as Venus.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Five replies to this thread and not one of them addressing the original
subject matter.

How sadly illustrative of what sci.astro has become.

In message , Jake
writes
Five replies to this thread and not one of them addressing the original
subject matter.

How sadly illustrative of what sci.astro has become.

In my case, it's because I was fairly sure Jim Green's reply had
absolutely nothing to do with the question, even though I was much less
sure what the questioner wanted ;-) It would be helpful to know why the
question is being asked.
This page has what looks like a useful description of doing the reverse
(converting heliocentric co-ordinates to right ascension/declination)
http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_planet_orbits.html
Here's another by Paul Schlyter
http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/altaz/pausch/tutorial.html
I'm probably wrong, but it seems to me that converting from celestial
co-ordinates to heliocentric is about determining the orbit of an
object, which is a much bigger project.

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Here's another by Paul Schlyter
http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/altaz/pausch/tutorial.html

Please use this url instead:

http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/tutorial.html

This is the one which is kept up-to-date. The url at the top already has
some outdated web and email addresses.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In message , Dr John Stockton
writes
JRS: In article .com
, dated Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:07:24 local, seen in news:sci.astro,
posted :

If you are an Einstein subscriber, and apply c=c+v to radar ranging of
the sun,(sic planets)
the astronomical unit varies up to 274,000kms whether measured at dawn
(radar approaching sun) or dusk (retreating).

Since the Astronomical Unit is defined as the *mean* distance between
earth and sun, your conclusion would be wrong even if your speed
argument were otherwise correct, which it is not.

The definition does not depend on the measurement method.

Moreover, ISTR that the AU is not determined by ranging the Sun (which
has a rather uncertain surface well away from its middle) but by ranging
other planets, such as Venus.

A bit of rummaging around on the Web shows that the definition is a lot
more complex than that. This seems typical
" the radius of an unperturbed circular orbit a massless body would
revolve about the sun in 2*(pi)/k days (i.e., 365.2568983.... days),
where k is defined as the Gaussian constant exactly equal to
0.01720209895." http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/glossary/au.html
He's wrong about c'=c+v, too. Or "not even wrong".