Extrasolar transit of TrEs-4

Greg Crinklaw wrote in news:928ca$46d7a494
:

You do believe in metal illness do you not?

....sometimes called, fittingly enough for an astronomy forum, saturnism.

---
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis
PhotoRescue - advanced data recovery for digital photographic media
latest review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1590497,00.asp

The perennial cynic speaks.


Greg Crinklaw writes:


You know what they say, "If
you argue with a fool you must argue like a fool or he will think
himself wise. If you argue like a fool you become a fool and the fool
becomes wiser then you. So never argue with a fool."

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:07:09 -0500, Pierre Vandevenne
wrote:

...sometimes called, fittingly enough for an astronomy forum, saturnism.

Or lunacy.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Mk2 wrote:
The perennial cynic speaks.

The perennial smartass troll morphs again.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

oriel36 wrote:

What sets Newton and his followers apart is that they will swear blind
that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds,they need it to make their 'predictions work'.An intelligent
21st century person recognises that for a star to return every 23
hours 56 minutes or 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night,it
requires the 1461 day calendrical cycle to work.

if you can fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into a 4 year
system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days then good
for you.The short answer is that the system Newton built on exists
only in the imagination and it never worked.

Please let me for now address just one narrow point: since 1582, with
the adaptation of the Gregorian calendar over large portions of
Western Europe, the relevant cycle would be not 1461 days, but
146097 days, if my crude arithmetic is correct: a 400-year cycle
with three leap days omitted, one for each centennial year not
divisible by 400. It's true that this calendar wasn't adopted
in England until 1752, after the era of Newton and Flamsteed.

Anyway, in sum, I'd see either a terrestrial frame of reference
or a solar frame of reference as quite compatible with a
heliocentric view of the Solar System, and your images give
a neat perspective.

When reading the article on Kepler, quite fascinating on the
shift from _orbis_ (traditionally meaning a "sphere," concrete
or notional) to _orbita_ (the "track" or path of a planet),
I noticed that the authors see no contradiction between him
and Newton. Certainly I'd see RA/Dec as a convenience rather
than an explanation of the applicable laws of physics, to take
a Keplerian perspective.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

William Hamblen wrote:
On 30 Aug 2007 15:58:54 GMT, Margo Schulter
wrote:

Thus in 1612, Simon Marius viewed the Great Nebula in Andromeda
(now known as the Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, or NGC 224) with an
early telescope and soon published a description, saying that
its luminosity had a quality like light viewed through transparent
horn. (An interesting image -- I wonder what kind of horn.)

Cow's horn or hoof. Horn cut thin and polished was used as lamp
shades to diffuse light.

Bud


Hi, Bud, and thanks for this helpful explanation. I've read and
marvelled at the passage many times, but without being quite sure
of what material was involved. The "lamp shade" concept makes
thing clear.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Hi, all, and please let me briefly explain my policy
for posting and engaging in friendly dialogue on this
newsgroup.

As long as the discussion keeps civil and on topic, I
regard both science and s.a.a. as open dialogues, where
any idea is "fair game" to be proposed, examined,
tested by observation or experiment, and possibly
falsified or verified.

Through this thread on Solar System dynamics I have
learned some fascinating things about Kepler of which
I wasn't aware previously, with the origins and use
of the term _orbita_ especially fascinating.

Of course, people may differ on how productive or
worthwhile a thread is, and also on the degree of
sanity shown by me or anyone else who posts here.
We are all human, and I find it the best approach
to consider each post on its own merits, striving
to show charity while also exercising critical
thinking.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

I said:
The worst part is that you don't seem to get it either...

Margo Schulter wrote:
As long as the discussion keeps civil and on topic, I
regard both science and s.a.a. as open dialogues, where
any idea is "fair game" to be proposed, examined,
tested by observation or experiment, and possibly
falsified or verified.

That's not something I am happy to be right about. Oh well. To argue
with you would only me make a fool...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

On Sep 2, 11:19 pm, Margo Schulter wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
What sets Newton and his followers apart is that they will swear blind
that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds,they need it to make their 'predictions work'.An intelligent
21st century person recognises that for a star to return every 23
hours 56 minutes or 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night,it
requires the 1461 day calendrical cycle to work.

if you can fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into a 4 year
system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days then good
for you.The short answer is that the system Newton built on exists
only in the imagination and it never worked.

Please let me for now address just one narrow point: since 1582, with
the adaptation of the Gregorian calendar over large portions of
Western Europe, the relevant cycle would be not 1461 days, but
146097 days, if my crude arithmetic is correct: a 400-year cycle
with three leap days omitted, one for each centennial year not
divisible by 400. It's true that this calendar wasn't adopted
in England until 1752, after the era of Newton and Flamsteed.

Anyway, in sum, I'd see either a terrestrial frame of reference
or a solar frame of reference as quite compatible with a
heliocentric view of the Solar System, and your images give
a neat perspective.


The images are from Mr Tezel based on plotting the positions of
Jupiter and Saturn against the same stellar background,the same
procedure which goes back to remote antiquity -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...loop_tezel.jpg

The 23 images represent about a year's work where the seperate images
are made two weeks apart .

It is when the sequence of images is rendered into time lapse footage
that you can see the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our common
orbits around the central Sun -

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

When you do see the Earth overtaking the slower moving planets it is
only a short step to realising how Copernican then using axial
rotation to explain the daily cycle.

The hypothetical observer on the Sun to explain retrogrades has no
astronomical precedence and it would have horrified the astronomers
Kepoler and Galileo who are faithful to the only possible way to view
apparent motions and resolve them -

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .


You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion
-- if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo











When reading the article on Kepler, quite fascinating on the
shift from _orbis_ (traditionally meaning a "sphere," concrete
or notional) to _orbita_ (the "track" or path of a planet),
I noticed that the authors see no contradiction between him
and Newton. Certainly I'd see RA/Dec as a convenience rather
than an explanation of the applicable laws of physics, to take
a Keplerian perspective.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

What you do is match up the 'Panis Quadragesimalis ' representation of
Kepler with the actual time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking
Jupiter and Saturn -

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

When you start to see how Kepler was making orbital comparisons
between an orbitally moving Earth and an orbitally moving Mars you
will not wish to ever return to guessing what a hypothetical observer
sees from the Sun.