Comet Garradd Visits M71

On Aug 27, 12:01*pm, "Howard Lester"
wrote:
"Marty" *wrote

http://img.villagephotos.com/imageview.aspx?i=27409198

Marty
Hmm. *I clicked on this to see if it worked after I posted it, and
showed it to my wife, and she LAUGHED....

It looks like a bird just got hit, feathers flying.... *:-)

That's one of the nice things about being an amateur astronomer... I
can enjoy the beauty of nature without having to pick it out of the
grill of my car...

Marty

On Aug 27, 7:32*pm, Marty wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:01*pm, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

"Marty" *wrote

http://img.villagephotos.com/imageview.aspx?i=27409198

Marty
Hmm. *I clicked on this to see if it worked after I posted it, and
showed it to my wife, and she LAUGHED....

It looks like a bird just got hit, feathers flying.... *:-)

That's one of the nice things about being an amateur astronomer... *I
can enjoy the beauty of nature without having to pick it out of the
grill of my car...

Marty

You are a homocentrist rather than an amateur astronomer and at least
be proud of your new appropriate title,an amateur astronomer could at
least tell you the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461
days,if you have problems with that then I suggest you read the
rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

The word 'amateur' has nothing to do with not being paid,it is the
love of something -

"amateur (n.)
1784, "one who has a taste for (something)," from Fr. amateur "lover
of," from L. amatorem (nom. amator) "lover," agent noun from amatus,
pp. of amare "to love""
Online Etymology

I have seen nothing but pure hatred for astronomy by people who dare
call themselves astronomers,amateur or otherwise.You are not looking
at the beauty of nature Marty,there are too many empiricists out there
who speak of the same wispy thing while their eyes unreal,you are
simply trying to ignore a judgement that future generations will place
on you and it is truly ugly.

oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:32 pm, Marty wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:01 pm, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

"Marty" wrote

http://img.villagephotos.com/imageview.aspx?i'409198

Marty
Hmm. I clicked on this to see if it worked after I posted it, and
showed it to my wife, and she LAUGHED....

It looks like a bird just got hit, feathers flying.... :-)

That's one of the nice things about being an amateur astronomer... I
can enjoy the beauty of nature without having to pick it out of the
grill of my car...

Marty

You are a homocentrist rather than an amateur astronomer and at least
be proud of your new appropriate title,an amateur astronomer could at
least tell you the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461
days,if you have problems with that then I suggest you read the
rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

The word 'amateur' has nothing to do with not being paid,it is the
love of something -

"amateur (n.)
1784, "one who has a taste for (something)," from Fr. amateur "lover
of," from L. amatorem (nom. amator) "lover," agent noun from amatus,
pp. of amare "to love""
Online Etymology

I have seen nothing but pure hatred for astronomy by people who dare
call themselves astronomers,amateur or otherwise.You are not looking
at the beauty of nature Marty,there are too many empiricists out there
who speak of the same wispy thing while their eyes unreal,you are
simply trying to ignore a judgement that future generations will place
on you and it is truly ugly.

Definition of amateur:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as
a pastime rather than as a profession.

So you are wrong about this as well.

You are the person who ignores the universe and bases his whole blinkered
view on what is visible from Earth. People without your mental limitations
are able to see closer to the truth.
Newton could say that there are no retrogrades visible from the Sun and the
whole human race apart from you understands.

When you see the visible universe seem to rotate every sidereal day you
should be able to reason that this us due to the rotation of the Earth. You
still haven't come up with an explanation of this. Until you do you will
never gain even a single convert to your views. Even Brad Guth who believes
Ed Conrad is correct seems to reject your views.

On Aug 27, 10:15*pm, wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:32 pm, Marty wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:01 pm, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

"Marty" *wrote

http://img.villagephotos.com/imageview.aspx?i'409198

Marty
Hmm. *I clicked on this to see if it worked after I posted it, and
showed it to my wife, and she LAUGHED....

It looks like a bird just got hit, feathers flying.... *:-)

That's one of the nice things about being an amateur astronomer... *I
can enjoy the beauty of nature without having to pick it out of the
grill of my car...

Marty

You are a homocentrist rather than an amateur astronomer and at least
be proud of your new *appropriate title,an amateur astronomer could at
least tell you the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461
days,if you have problems with that then I suggest you read the
rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

The word 'amateur' has nothing to do with not being paid,it is the
love of something -

"amateur (n.)
1784, "one who has a taste for (something)," from Fr. amateur "lover
of," from L. amatorem (nom. amator) "lover," agent noun from amatus,
pp. of amare "to love""
Online Etymology

I have seen nothing but pure hatred for astronomy by people who dare
call themselves astronomers,amateur or otherwise.You are not looking
at the beauty of nature Marty,there are too many empiricists out there
who speak of the same wispy thing while their eyes unreal,you are
simply trying to ignore a judgement that future generations will place
on you and it is truly ugly.

Definition of amateur:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as
a pastime rather than as a profession.

So you are wrong about this as well.

You are the person who ignores the universe and bases his whole blinkered
view on what is visible from Earth. People without your mental limitations
are able to see closer to the truth.
Newton could say that there are no retrogrades visible from the Sun and the
whole human race apart from you understands.


Planetary retrograde motion is an illusion caused by the orbital
motion of the Earth and if you can't figure out what Copernicus first
proposed and Galileo and Kepler knew then you stand little chance of
building on the powerful Western astronomical insights -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Telescopes and imaging techniques are now so advanced that it is
possible to extend the original insights to orbital and rotational
specifics and especially the additional orbital component needed to
explain the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle when
allied with daily rotation.The initial excitement has turned to dismay
that readers can't see the two rotations,representing an intrinsic
axis and a separate 'travelling' axis where a planet turns in its
daily rotation to the Sun with variations in latitudinal speeds and
the separate orbital turning to the Sun that is best understood as the
polar daylight/darkness cycle.The wonderful time lapse footage of
Uranus and its unique rotational and orbital traits is almost a gift
to astronomers in allowing students to picture what is going on -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

With right ascension,and this is the framework the Royal Society
empiricists use, there is not a chance of separating the daily and
orbital dynamics as the calendar based system formats observations
using timekeeping averages hence the orbital trait gets lost,in Uranus
that is the East/West component as the planet takes 84 years to
complete a 360 degree rotation to the central Sun-

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg



When you see the visible universe seem to rotate every sidereal day you
should be able to reason that this us due to the rotation of the Earth. You
still haven't come up with an explanation of this.

You start with Mar 1st 2008 and finish Feb 29th 2012 and work
everything out from there including the late 17th century error which
tried to impose 1465 rotations into the calendar period of 1461
days.Stating the error would mean little to the wider population but
anyone tracking the issue over all the years this has been front and
center can see the effects in multiple areas from geology to
climate,from historical perspectives to contemporary ones and many
more productive avenues to discuss and consider.It is not a time to
go into hiding but to come out and deal with issues decisively rather
than pretend nothing is wrong and especially a call for empiricists
themselves to clean up their own house,after all,there is only a tiny
minority making money trying to repeat the same thing over and over
again using a system and framework that begins and ends in Ra/Dec.

There is nothing new to look forward to unless these issues are
cleared up,unless people really want to engage in the current scam of
attributing outrageous characteristics to exoplanets,there is the
genuine overhaul of astronomy to consider where ideologies such as
'big bang/black hole' go off the menu and visible astronomy makes its
return.

On Aug 28, 10:19*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:15*pm, wrote:





oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:32 pm, Marty wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:01 pm, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

"Marty" *wrote

http://img.villagephotos.com/imageview.aspx?i'409198

Marty
Hmm. *I clicked on this to see if it worked after I posted it, and
showed it to my wife, and she LAUGHED....

It looks like a bird just got hit, feathers flying.... *:-)

That's one of the nice things about being an amateur astronomer... *I
can enjoy the beauty of nature without having to pick it out of the
grill of my car...

Marty

You are a homocentrist rather than an amateur astronomer and at least
be proud of your new *appropriate title,an amateur astronomer could at
least tell you the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461
days,if you have problems with that then I suggest you read the
rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

The word 'amateur' has nothing to do with not being paid,it is the
love of something -

"amateur (n.)
1784, "one who has a taste for (something)," from Fr. amateur "lover
of," from L. amatorem (nom. amator) "lover," agent noun from amatus,
pp. of amare "to love""
Online Etymology

I have seen nothing but pure hatred for astronomy by people who dare
call themselves astronomers,amateur or otherwise.You are not looking
at the beauty of nature Marty,there are too many empiricists out there
who speak of the same wispy thing while their eyes unreal,you are
simply trying to ignore a judgement that future generations will place
on you and it is truly ugly.

Definition of amateur:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as
a pastime rather than as a profession.

So you are wrong about this as well.

You are the person who ignores the universe and bases his whole blinkered
view on what is visible from Earth. People without your mental limitations
are able to see closer to the truth.
Newton could say that there are no retrogrades visible from the Sun and the
whole human race apart from you understands.

Planetary retrograde motion is an illusion caused by the orbital
motion of the Earth


Everybody knows this. Don't try to teach us how to suck eggs! But
don't try to teach us anything until you use the brains you think your
God gave you to work out hat Newton said about no retrogrades from the
Sun. With help you can develop the attribute known as visualisation -
babies can viualise from an early age. Using this you can imagine how
the Solar system would appear from the Sun. You will then see just how
correct Newton was and how to adopt the new frame of reference which
makes things much more simple and coherent. You would then be able to
see just how beautiful the Ndewtonian view of the solar sysyem is and
just how wrong you were.




and if you can't figure out what Copernicus first
proposed and Galileo and Kepler knew then you stand little chance of
building on the powerful Western astronomical insights -
!

You reject these insights and dont realise how people like Galileo
would have laughed at your misinterpretation of his theories.





http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Telescopes and imaging techniques

Which depend on the physics you reject.


are now so advanced that it is
possible to extend the original insights to orbital and rotational
specifics and especially the additional orbital component needed to
explain the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle when
allied with daily rotation.The initial excitement has turned to dismay
that readers can't see the two rotations,representing an intrinsic
axis and a separate 'travelling' axis where a planet turns in its
daily rotation to the Sun with variations in latitudinal speeds and
the separate orbital turning to the Sun that is best understood as the
polar daylight/darkness cycle.The wonderful time lapse footage of
Uranus and its unique rotational and orbital traits is almost a gift
to astronomers in allowing students to picture what is going on -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

With right ascension,and this is the framework the Royal Society
empiricists use, there is not a chance of separating the daily and
orbital dynamics as the calendar based system formats observations
using timekeeping averages hence the orbital trait gets lost,


Once again you have this backwards. The calendar is not a holy
scripture dictating the way the Earth behaves or a natural law. It is
a clever way of describing some of the effects of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun. As soon as accurate clocks were developed the mean
solar day had to be introduced to allow for the combined effects of
the Earths ellipitical orbit and the regular rotation of the Earth
about it's axis once every siderial day.
The analemma you so detest is an obvious result of the varying natural
noon. It shows how wrong you are that's why you hate it so much.






in Uranus
that is the East/West component as the planet takes 84 years to
complete a 360 degree rotation to the central Sun-

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg




When you see the visible universe seem to rotate every sidereal day you
should be able to reason that this us due to the rotation of the Earth. You
still haven't come up with an explanation of this.

You start with Mar 1st 2008 and finish Feb 29th 2012 and work
everything out from there including the late 17th century error which
tried to impose 1465 rotations into the calendar period of 1461
days.Stating the error would mean little to the wider population but
anyone tracking the issue over all the years this has been front and
center can see the effects in multiple areas from geology to
climate,from historical perspectives to contemporary ones and many
more productive *avenues to discuss and consider.It is not a time to
go into hiding but to come out and deal with issues decisively rather
than pretend nothing is wrong and especially a call for empiricists
themselves to clean up their own house,after all,there is only a tiny
minority making *money trying to repeat the same thing over and over
again using a system and framework that begins and ends in Ra/Dec.

The map is not the territory. The calendar is only a clever device to
keep track of the Earth's motions.



There is nothing new to look forward to unless these issues are
cleared up,unless people really want to engage in the current scam of
attributing outrageous characteristics to exoplanets,there is the
genuine overhaul of astronomy to consider where ideologies such as
'big bang/black hole' go off the menu and visible astronomy makes its
return.- Hide quoted text -



You can't look forward to anything new until you liberate yourself
from your infantile fantasies and learn to see what clever primary
school children can understand about the real Solar system.



- Show quoted text -

I have thought quite a lot about what it took Copernicus to work out
that the Earth had two major motions using distinct arguments for each
motion,the daily return of the Sun for daily rotation .and the more
stretched out arguments for orbital motion by treating them as an
illusion.

"What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but
from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve
about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than
one motion.
The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not
from their motion but from the earth's. The motion of the earth alone,
therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the
heavens." Copernicus 1512

http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm

Having been clear on the late 17th century mutation which tried to
force the resolution for retrogrades to a hypothetical observer on the
Sun,it would be unusual to encounter opposition to the original
resolution as it is almost impossible to understand it any other
way,even for constellation hoppers like Marty here who has no pretense
for anything other than spotting objects without any sense of the
interpretative skills associated with astronomers.The sequential
imaging showing the differences astronomers since antiquity noted the
duration and extent of retrogrades only enhances what Kepler did in
attaching an orbital modification to the great work of Copernicus

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

The next set of images is especially lovely as it includes Uranus in
retrograde ,which of course if the Earth overtaking the planet as we
all move in one direction around the Sun -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

The rudeness of readers is quite an experience yet I have no intention
of joining these nuisances in maintaining a hatred of astronomy,there
is however a quiet pride that the new modification applied to the
explanation of the seasons and the natural noon cycles by introducing
an additional orbital component will eventually be accepted as it is
derived from direct observations of Uranus and then reworked back into
the effects on Earth.Few of my ancestors had to deal with this biting
hostility which serves no good purpose ,after all,we sing our hearts
out for our astronomical talent and I am not adverse to recognizing
that some people just wish to appreciate the world and the Universe at
their own level so we sing as best we can with what talent God gives
us.

How many people who feel things will lament the loss of the twin
towers in New York,not just the physical buildings themselves nor the
loss of life on that day but what these things once represented in
context of an era and somehow the reader can imagine how I must feel
when misguided people tried to diminish the great Western insights
because of a need to explain all motions in the same framework,the
toxic strain of empiricism used Ra/Dec to achieve that
objective.So,like every soldier who has little choice to pick a
battleground,I come here and remind readers what astronomy once was
and how it can return to a world that badly needs it.The nuisances
are not good enough to draw me into a slanging match and the rest are
silent when they should participate but whatever way it is
approached,this is our era and do not need to be chained to the
mistakes of the past for that would be a true sign of weakness.

On Aug 28, 7:35*pm, oriel36 wrote:

How many people will lament the loss of the twin
towers in New York?

Kelleher admits total responsibility for twin towers.

Not CIA after all! Brenda Gaff gutted at latest news.

Threatens to fast at government corruption.

Hanson sirmks leeglufly!

The dominant view at the moment is that not only can we look into the
past directly but also see the entire evolutionary history of the
Universe and that requires a person suspend their own appreciation of
the continuity between past,present and future as people experience
these things in their own lives,that of our race,our planet and the
Universe itself.

Gentleness has its own authority which the crude mistake for
humility,for a person can be gentle out of authority and can display
humility when appropriate but the Christian Way does not ask its
followers to bow down to rudeness and pretension but to counter it
with the positive things in existence.The life of an astronomer is the
most encompassing in all science for all existence depends on the
great cycles of the Earth and an appreciation of them so when a group
of people exist that can't interpret that the Earth turns once in a
day and 1461 times in 1461 days,the study of the Earth in all its
facets collapses and I would like to believe that people are better
than this contemptible offshoot of the Ra/Dec framework and late 17th
century reasoning such as 'big bang'.

There is much hope,even though the issues are quite precise and
intricate,they can be handled in a broad way without being casual even
allowing for my poor descriptions sometimes,at least those restricted
to spelling and all the other things which happens when not reviewing
a response before posting.There is no way to exclude the new
explanation for the seasons using an additional orbital component for
any great length of time as all it takes is a brief detour to explain
the polar daylight/darkness cycle with direct observational support
via Uranus,that a community has chosen to ignore it for so long
already can be dismaying but that is about it.

Again,gentleness is not a weakness and no astronomer who recognizes
the value of another's work ever sought to diminish the person who
accomplished something no matter how small or great.There is an
intense satisfaction to astronomy at an interpretative level in such a
way that the historical boundaries disappear when encountering what
Copernicus,Kepler and even Galileo actually did so it is not a matter
of whether they were right or not right, for as long as man may live
there are always modifications and new pictures to arrange, but the
sense of being encompassed in the great affairs of humanity rather
than trying to project some sort of superiority.