Have Questions Or Need Help From An Astronomer ?

I'm here to help you understand our amazing space !
Have age old questions about everything space and astronomy?
Need help figuring out your astronomy homework ?
need help observing ? or can't find that nebula, galaxy or star
cluster you've been looking for?

Well your answers are here . What better way to find out about our
amazing universe than from an astronomer. On my site I have posted
questions I've recieved & the answers to them . Have fun reading them
and learn !

Learning about space & Astronomy is just as amazing and fun when your
looking at the great night sky ! When you learn you earn!


Send your questions to:

If your asking a question PLEASE EMAIL your question . If you put it
here , I won't see it .

My website is :

http://www.asktheastronomer.blogspot.com

In uk.sci.astronomy message
groups.com, Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:26:25, Ask The Astronomer
posted:

Well your answers are here . What better way to find out about our
amazing universe than from an astronomer. On my site I have posted
questions I've recieved & the answers to them . Have fun reading them
and learn !

I cannot see the question that I sent, nor the rather useless first
answer. The second answer has not yet arrived. Has anyone had better
service?

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 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.

Ask The Astronomer wrote:
stuff

Well, 2 weeks ago I asked pretty much the same question as John Stockton
about L3, and another about Oblique Ascension. I got a reply today. I'm
not about to re-post an entire private email, but I wasn't
over-impressed.

He told me that "the L points" and "Oblique Ascension" are "just names".
He referred me to Wikipedia for the Lagrange points (I guess he knows
when he's out of his depth) and informed me that "Oblique ascension is
just an arcane side to right ascension, dealing with the difference
between
the ecliptic and the equator." Rubbish -- it doesn't deal with "the
difference between the ecliptic and the equator" -- in fact, it doesn't
refer to the equator at all except for using the FPA as a start point.

Well, he says that the Q&As will soon appear on his blog, so I guess
we'll see if he reads this and learns anything between now and then.
Sorry, if this seems cruel, but spammers tend to get under my skin...
:-).


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Well look who crawled out after a few weeks away from the forum.

Let me answer your questions.


On Feb 26, 6:05 pm, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:
Ask The Astronomer wrote:
stuff

Well, 2 weeks ago I asked pretty much the same question as John Stockton
about L3, and another about Oblique Ascension. I got a reply today. I'm
not about to re-post an entire private email, but I wasn't
over-impressed.


L3 is for people who know no better or to be specific.hapless idiots
who are still stuck in the late 17th century attempt to explain
planetary motion via terrestrial ballistics and all fitered through
the Ra/Dec system.

The ad hoc Newtonian solution involves isolating the solar system and
now should look quaint insofar as the solar system has a galactic
orbital motion therefore that motion should influence planetary
orbital geometry in some way,at least in principle.

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax
from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." NEWTON

This L3 business is therefore for people who are stuck in Isaac's
celestial sphere which brings us on to the astrological term 'oblique
ascansion' -

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dicti...-ascension.php


He told me that "the L points" and "Oblique Ascension" are "just names".
He referred me to Wikipedia for the Lagrange points (I guess he knows
when he's out of his depth) and informed me that "Oblique ascension is
just an arcane side to right ascension, dealing with the difference
between
the ecliptic and the equator." Rubbish -- it doesn't deal with "the
difference between the ecliptic and the equator" -- in fact, it doesn't
refer to the equator at all except for using the FPA as a start point.

Well, he says that the Q&As will soon appear on his blog, so I guess
we'll see if he reads this and learns anything between now and then.
Sorry, if this seems cruel, but spammers tend to get under my skin...
:-).

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The poor guy is trying to tick off all the right boxes to please you
and you get the constellational answers you deserve.

Now,someday a person here will appreciate that we do see planetary
orbital motion directly from an orbitally moving Earth thereby
affirming the Copernican insight and astronomy can resume as a
discipline after 300 years of the calendrically driven Ra/Dec
observational convenience.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

So,who is big enough to tackle Isaac's poor take on retrogrades and
their resolution as viewed from an orbitally moving Earth -

"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

Did'nt think so.

In uk.sci.astronomy message , Mon, 26 Feb
2007 18:05:33, Stephen Tonkin posted:
Ask The Astronomer wrote:
stuff

Well, 2 weeks ago I asked pretty much the same question as John
Stockton about L3,

If that was anything more than a test, try asking me!

In respect of URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity4.htm, although
it would still be nice to have the numbers, logic, algebra, and coding
checked, I'd also be pleased to know observations from a simple first
read-through.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 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.

I wrote:
in fact, it doesn't refer to the equator at all except for using the
FPA

DUH! I really ought to proof-read what I write:

Delete: equator
Insert: ecliptic


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On 27 Feb, 16:00, "oriel36" wrote:
Well look who crawled out after a few weeks away from the forum.

Pot, Kettle and Black ? finished another course of treatment Jezza ?
jc

On Feb 28, 1:44 pm, "John Carruthers"
wrote:
On 27 Feb, 16:00, "oriel36" wrote:

Well look who crawled out after a few weeks away from the forum.

Pot, Kettle and Black ? finished another course of treatment Jezza ?
jc

I love Steve's tutorial on how a location on Earth rotates to face the
Sun every 24 hours thereby getting rid of the pesky Equation of Time
correction -

http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/time.htm

Flamsteed was having a great time justifying the Earth's motions using
a 1461 day calendrical cycle,did I mention that it is split into 3
years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days making it useless for
heliocentric astronomy ?

I know,you think the 'sidereal' value is based on 365 days 5 hours 49
minutes but ask yourself what day a star does not return in 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds and you may realise that it is the calendar
system after all.So,you get to see what many generations never did,the
exact location of the late 17th century error -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " JOHN FLAMSTEED


http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ongitude2.html

Oh,but it would'nt John,trying to 'prove' axial rotation is constant
via the calendar system is not recommended and it is such an obvious
mistake.Our astronomical timekeeping ancestors never tried to prove
axial rotation is constant,what they did was overlay the human devised
creation of the 24 hour day on terrestrial longitudes and took axial
rotation as a constant,at least to keep clocks in sync with axial
rotation at 15 degrees per hour.

So,there is another crowd who have basic problems with the 24 hour day
and natural phenomena,the difference being that the creationists are
in the minority.