Does the sky revolve around the Earth?

Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:18:52 AM UTC-5, Razzmatazz wrote:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

For a more detailed explanation of the pictu
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Star-Tra...Oinoe-2016.htm

Anthony's photos are amazing...

Razzmatazz:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

And...

For a more detailed explanation of the pictu
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Star-Tra...Oinoe-2016.htm

Yes, very nice. No surprise that Anthony is still turning out beautiful
and creative photos.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

Photo looks like my old vinyl records! (o:
http://i.imgur.com/XR2rIxf.jpg

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:18:52 PM UTC+1, Razzmatazz wrote:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

The moon orbits the Earth hence its reflected light creates a day/night cycle within a polar day/night cycle -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

http://www.moongiant.com/phase/today/

It is one of two locations on the surface of the planet that bypasses the diurnal day/night cycle.

People are never too old to enjoy something new leaving those behind who imagine identifying objects in a star trail framework is all humanity is fit for.

Once upon a time when I served as an area science fair judge I encountered a similar (though less artistic) photograph. The student's hypothesis was that the North Star was precisely in line with Earth's axis of rotation – located directly above Earth's north pole.

As with Anthony's image on APOD, the student's image showed a small arc for the North Star's trail. He concluded, based on his own photographic evidence, that his hypothesis was correct! After providing due praise for the project and the photo, I pointed out that the North Star was not precisely above Earth's north pole – and his own photograph provided proof. The student's teacher, who just happened to be nearby, came over and tried to defend the student's conclusion by pointing out that the North Star was in the center of the pattern of star trails. . .

Does the sky revolve around the Earth? The answer depends on one's perspective. A viable argument could be made in support of either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer with a different set of physical laws supporting each position. That being said, the physical laws appear to be far simpler if we assume the 'no' answer to be the correct answer.

OTOH: If the sky revolves around the Earth, then everything more distant than Neptune is exceeding the 'local' speed of light. Perhaps there's hope after all for superluminal space travel ;-)

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 9:18:52 AM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:43:39 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
Once upon a time when I served as an area science fair judge I encountered a similar (though less artistic) photograph. The student's hypothesis was that the North Star was precisely in line with Earth's axis of rotation – located directly above Earth's north pole.

As with Anthony's image on APOD, the student's image showed a small arc for the North Star's trail. He concluded, based on his own photographic evidence, that his hypothesis was correct! After providing due praise for the project and the photo, I pointed out that the North Star was not precisely above Earth's north pole – and his own photograph provided proof. The student's teacher, who just happened to be nearby, came over and tried to defend the student's conclusion by pointing out that the North Star was in the center of the pattern of star trails. . .

Does the sky revolve around the Earth? The answer depends on one's perspective. A viable argument could be made in support of either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer with a different set of physical laws supporting each position. That being said, the physical laws appear to be far simpler if we assume the 'no' answer to be the correct answer.

OTOH: If the sky revolves around the Earth, then everything more distant than Neptune is exceeding the 'local' speed of light. Perhaps there's hope after all for superluminal space travel ;-)

Warp Drive Mr. Sulu!!


Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 9:18:52 AM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

Sketcher:
Does the sky revolve around the Earth? The answer depends on one's
perspective. A viable argument could be made in support of either a 'yes'
or a 'no' answer with a different set of physical laws supporting each
position. That being said, the physical laws appear to be far simpler if
we assume the 'no' answer to be the correct answer.

True enough for formulation of physical laws, and certainly an
expression of objective reality. As a practical matter, though, I have
to consider that the sky *appears* to revolve around the earth. As seen
by me, my telescope mount stays fixed on the Earth and in the course of
an evening its RA axis rotates to follow the *apparent* motion of
celestial objects as they revolve around the fixed Earth. How can I
prove with just my GEM and my two eyes that it is the Earth that is
revolving, and not the heavens?

I'm not mathematically qualified to argue this, but I read once in a
physics book that, given only one's two eyes, it is impossible to
determine whether the Earth rotates on its axis once each day or the
Earth remains fixed while the Sun completes an orbit of the Earth once
each day.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:18:52 PM UTC+1, Razzmatazz wrote:
Today's APOD would have you believe so:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Enjoy :^))

Such strange people as you are not asking a question but making a statement that circumpolar motion equates to one rotation of the planet.

The entire system of timekeeping is founded on a single annual observation covering 4 circuits of the Earth and providing proof that the Earth orbits a stationary Sun. The first appearance of Sirius as a dawn appearance signaled that the Earth had reached a particular position in its orbit where the star is seen once more after a few month's absence -

http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast...liacsirius.JPG


"..on account of the precession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years... it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year" Canopus Decree 236 BC

To my knowledge there is only one graphic available that takes account of the line-of-sight observation where the stars disappear at twilight and emerge a few months later at dawn due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth as ElNath, Castro and Pollux are seen to do -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

The seasonal change in the appearance of the stars was jettisoned by the Greeks who adopted the motion of the Sun through the Zodiac thereby the foundations of timekeeping using the addition of an extra day/rotation became obscured.

The proportion of rotations using the correct system of references is 1461 rotations for 4 annual circuits which implies (but not observes) 365 1/4 days/rotations within the confines of one annual circuit. By right the sequence of reasoning should be enjoyed as a marvel of human ingenuity but is lost to mindless celestial sphere enthusiasts who can't adjust to the reasoning which ignores a rotating field of stars.