A new start

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 2:05:40 AM UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 07:25:46 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It's not _easy_, but it's perfectly doable without huge effort.
I've
seen Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Sirius in full daylight
at
38°
N. The latter, three times.


Naked eye or through a telescope?


Naked eye. Through a telescope it really is easy, and you can see
dozens of stars in the daytime, not just Sirius.

Can you see Mercury naked-eye in daytime too? After all, Mercury can
shine brighter than Saturn.

Canopus and Alfa Centauri ought be possible to see in daytime too.
Perhaps even Arcturus and Vega. If you can see Saturn...

Best thing is for you to give some of those objects a try, but Canopus and Rigil Kentaurus will very difficult from Stockholm.

Some other ideas....

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essen...he-daytime-sky

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 08:05:37 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 07:25:46 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It's not _easy_, but it's perfectly doable without huge effort.
I've
seen Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Sirius in full daylight
at
38°
N. The latter, three times.


Naked eye or through a telescope?


Naked eye. Through a telescope it really is easy, and you can see
dozens of stars in the daytime, not just Sirius.

Can you see Mercury naked-eye in daytime too? After all, Mercury can
shine brighter than Saturn.

I've tried for Mercury in the day, but never seen it. Just too close
to the Sun, I think.

Canopus and Alfa Centauri ought be possible to see in daytime too.
Perhaps even Arcturus and Vega. If you can see Saturn...

I've tried for Canopus, Arcturus, and Vega in the daytime, by sighting
along my telescope after first locating them that way. I might have
got a glimmer of Arcturus, but it could have been my imagination.

FWIW, I normally play these observation games near the middle of the
day. An hour after sunrise or before sunset would probably boost the
chances of seeing something.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:13:55 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
FWIW, I normally play these observation games near the middle of the
day. An hour after sunrise or before sunset would probably boost the
chances of seeing something.

If so, your success in seeing Mars near noon is impressive, because
Mars must then be nearer the Sun than about 90 degrees to be above
the horizon at noon, and then Mars will be fainter than Arcturus.

I suppose those who can't make the adjustment and remain stuck in identification astronomy without any sense of the relationship of our moving Earth to the Sun or other planets wouldn't be able to appreciate the inspirational language where children change to adult by degrees of understanding -

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror vaguely, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, remain these three; but the greatest of these is love." Paul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L74B98ITKEA&t=298s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6k4iXieV0&t=49s

When Mars is near the Sun it is furthest from Earth yet Venus can be near the Sun while being both near and further from the Earth as it runs back and forth around the central Sun. This all plays out around June in the time lapse from the year 2000 or in the animated supplementary information.

People who feel satisfied when they make the adjustment to what 21st century timelapse can do will be astronomers whereas those who live off daylight descriptions of planets are perhaps best left to their naked eye/telescope hobby.

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:04:49 AM UTC-8, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 07:13:55 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
FWIW, I normally play these observation games near the middle of the
day. An hour after sunrise or before sunset would probably boost the
chances of seeing something.

If so, your success in seeing Mars near noon is impressive, because
Mars must then be nearer the Sun than about 90 degrees to be above
the horizon at noon, and then Mars will be fainter than Arcturus.

I consider Venus fairly easy and have seen it with my unaided eye many times - I am at roughly 45 deg N lat. It is easiest to do if you find Venus just before sunrise, so you know the angular separation from the Sun. You then know where to look later in the day.

Jupiter is very difficult, at least for me, but I have seen it a couple of times.

In theory, Mars is supposedly rarely visible, but I have never tried.

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I suppose those who can't make the adjustment and remain stuck in identification astronomy without any sense of the relationship of our moving Earth to the Sun or other planets wouldn't be able to appreciate the inspirational language where children change to adult by degrees of understanding -

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror vaguely, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, remain these three; but the greatest of these is love." Paul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L74B98ITKEA&t=298s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6k4iXieV0&t=49s

When Mars is near the Sun it is furthest from Earth yet Venus can be near the Sun while being both near and further from the Earth as it runs back and forth around the central Sun. This all plays out around June in the time lapse from the year 2000 or in the animated supplementary information.

People who feel satisfied when they make the adjustment to what 21st century timelapse can do will be astronomers whereas those who live off daylight descriptions of planets are perhaps best left to their naked eye/telescope hobby.

What are you babbling about? You sound like an astrologer or fortune teller - a lot of blather with little real substance.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:40:37 PM UTC-5, corvastro wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I suppose those who can't make the adjustment and remain stuck in identification astronomy without any sense of the relationship of our moving Earth to the Sun or other planets wouldn't be able to appreciate the inspirational language where children change to adult by degrees of understanding -

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror vaguely, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, remain these three; but the greatest of these is love." Paul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L74B98ITKEA&t=298s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6k4iXieV0&t=49s

When Mars is near the Sun it is furthest from Earth yet Venus can be near the Sun while being both near and further from the Earth as it runs back and forth around the central Sun. This all plays out around June in the time lapse from the year 2000 or in the animated supplementary information.

People who feel satisfied when they make the adjustment to what 21st century timelapse can do will be astronomers whereas those who live off daylight descriptions of planets are perhaps best left to their naked eye/telescope hobby.

What are you babbling about? You sound like an astrologer or fortune teller - a lot of blather with little real substance.

He has a unique perspective on things. There wouldn't be anything wrong with that except that he might not respect others' perspectives.

It has been theorized several times that he is a 'bot of some type.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:40:37 PM UTC-7, corvastro wrote:

What are you babbling about?

In Junior High, my science textbook had a table of the Solar System.

It had a table showing things like the diameters of the various planets, and how
long their days were.

According to the table, the day on Mercury was 88 days long, and the day on
Earth was 23 hours and 56 minutes long.

Of course, if the day on Earth wasn't 24 hours, there would be something wrong
with our watches. And, if Mercury always kept one face to the Sun, as was
believed then, its day and night would last forever... which was the clue as to
what was wrong with that table.

Apparently, he must have had a similar experience, but he was scarred for life
by it, and has decided that the true rotational period of the Earth must be 24
hours exactly as well as its day. Which, of course, is easily shown to be
ridiculous because of the Equation of Time, but he doesn't listen.

He thinks the fact that the night is cold and the day is warm proves that
"stellar circumpolar motion" is insignificant, and only the solar day is
meaningful and must be the Earth's rotation.

Furthermore, since Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were good Roman Catholics,
while Newton was a Protestant, he has concluded that the Law of Universal
Gravitation was a gigantic hoax, and in fact while the planets do truly orbit
the Sun and not the Earth, they're still being pushed around by angels - none of
this applying inertia, momentum, angular momentum, and gravity to celestial
bodies, thank you very much.

So, yes, his views are pretty ridiculous. So ridiculous that posters here are
now criticizing him even when he is actually _right_ about something for a
change.

What could he possibly be right about?

Well, when Mars or Jupiter goes retrograde, that's just an illusion caused by
the motion of the Earth.

He has recently observed that in the case of Mercury or Venus, their overall
apparent orbital motion around the Earth and through the Zodiac once per year is
the illusion, while the loops that give rise to retrogrades represent their real
motion around the Sun - in the loops, we see them orbiting the Sun much as we
can see the Galilean moons orbit Jupiter.

This is exactly right - but he expresses it so clumsily that some people are
replying to it as if he is saying some other thing which is wrong.

John Savard