Polar astronomy

Gerald Kelleher wrote:

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 8:25:15 PM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
Davoud wrote:

Bill:
Haven't you considered how much your choice to not take the time to
organize your topics into complete subjects that you then explain in a
systematic and through way - hurts your agenda?

He's a troll and his agenda is to reel in people like you. I would say
that he has been splendidly successful at fulfilling his agenda.

Reel in to what purpose?

As far as I can tell all he does is to explain what we all already know,
in a way that none of us understands. Quite a feat, really,

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

These comments give me a lot of satisfaction as once you are shown how it
is done it all becomes common knowledge and easy. The illusory vs actual
loops of the planets owes a lot to astrophotographers and animation so
have no problem commending others for their efforts -

You miss my point:
We all know the fact you are trying to explain, but your explainations
don't help at all. In fact they are utterly confusing.
This should NOT give you any satisfaction at all.

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:25:15 PM UTC-7, Anders Eklöf wrote:

As far as I can tell all he does is to explain what we all already know,
in a way that none of us understands. Quite a feat, really,

Well, I wouldn't quite say that this is what he does.

It's true he is talking about subjects that we all understand quite well; that the
Earth orbits the Sun like all the other planets, as Copernicus said, contrary to
what the ancients believed.

But he isn't trying to tell us what we already know to be true. He is instead
trying to tell us things we know to be false.

He is trying to tell us that...

the Moon does not rotate, and

the Earth rotates once every 24 hours, not once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and
4 seconds.

That is because referencing the rotational motion of a planet or satellite to
the fixed stars, instead of that body's primary, is, for some reason,
illegitimate.

Perhaps because the normal solar day is far more important in daily life than
the sidereal day?

Because if one goes over the Sun's head, relating the Earth's rotation directly
to the stars, then one is implicitly denying Copernicus, because only if the
Earth did not orbit the Sun would it be in the privileged position of being
referenced to the stars as the Sun went around it?

I think that latter sentence comes as close to his real reason as I can come.

I try to explain to him that the "sidereal day" need not be viewed as doing any
such thing - and it's needed, because to describe the Earth's rotation in
physical terms, we can't envisage it slowing down and speeding up on a regular
annual basis to produce the effects seen in the Equation of Time.

But - and this is the other thing we know to be false that he seeks to convince
us of - he will have none of that, as in his opinion, astronomy, properly so
called, involves appreciating the heavens through an intuitive facility, and not
through crass materialistic empiricism or mathematical gobbledy-gook.

So he is not merely confusing, he is substantively mistaken.

John Savard

Davoud:
He's a troll and his agenda is to reel in people like you. I would say
that he has been splendidly successful at fulfilling his agenda.

Anders Eklöf:
Reel in to what purpose?

I'm not a psychologist, not even an amateur one, so I can't tell you
what motivates a troll. The /appearance/ is, to me, that he enjoys
seeing people drawn to answer his nonsensical posts like a moth is
drawn to a flame. Some people simply cannot refrain from answering
trolls. That, too, would be a question for an expert to answer. /IMO/
they make fools of themselves and are really no better than the trolls
they are trying to "set straight."

--
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 Sunday, 4 March 2018 05:43:19 UTC+1, Davoud wrote:

I'm not a psychologist, not even an amateur one, so I can't tell you
what motivates a troll. The /appearance/ is, to me, that he enjoys
seeing people drawn to answer his nonsensical posts like a moth is
drawn to a flame. Some people simply cannot refrain from answering
trolls. That, too, would be a question for an expert to answer. /IMO/
they make fools of themselves and are really no better than the trolls
they are trying to "set straight."

A troll and his "science" are soon parted.

This one pretended to lose the plot on day one but is still revered by his doting, leather clad, virginal pedants a decade later.

Kicking a troll in the restraints of an asylum wheelchair is not an act of kindness.

It is sadomasochism.

The only use for a sharp stick in this endless, astrological[sic] "reality show" is to pierce the heart of the attention-seeking vampire.

This will have much the same effect as pulling the plug on its life support system.

"1461 Unplugged" has a nice ring to it. It could even become a 'rock' classic. ;-)

Celestial sphere enthusiasts are like brexiteers, they live in the past and they see any use of imaging for 21st century research topics as an affront to their clockwork enterprise. The vast majority have retreated to the excellent moderated forums which provide them with all the information about magnification and nothing like the information that flows through this newsgroup. The theoretical 'astro-research' forum is there for the moderators to grandstand in their endeavor to torture the English language.

I don't beg attention and certainly not from nuisances and noiseboxes but this is an unmoderated forum with all its advantages and disadvantages so telling airheads to eff-off only invites trouble as I discovered from 20 years here.

The colonists are slightly different, they have yet to discover that Royal Society empiricists are a bit like the extreme British conservatives in that they project a great story but with no substance behind it, at least to where it has evolved. It is entirely different story in the late 17th century when the equatorial coordinate system emerged when astronomy in universities went into full reverse as the rotating celestial sphere system allied with accurate clocks emerged. Guys like Davoud and Peterson are from this group but nothing could be more suffocating for enjoying astronomy in the spirit of the original Sun centered astronomers.

The Brits themselves here know better, for them it is 'Piltdown man' all over again but perhaps many, many magnitudes worse. Once the game is up they should work to detach physics from the pseudoscience of astro-physics so a lot of trouble can be avoided however, from watching how Eton brexiteers behave, they would rather drink their own toilet water than adapt.

The last are the nuisances and noiseboxes but little can be said there as they are just killing time.

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:43:34 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:01:36 -0800 (PST), Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Lots of innovations to consider during the period of polar twilight after the March Equinox at the South Pole station. The same principles apply to polar sunset as they do at habitable latitudes as objects close to the central Sun will appear during that period to the left of the sun for an extended period of about 6 continuous weeks before polar darkness sets in.

On the Solstice neither Venus nor Mercury will be observed for the same reason that at daily rotational midnight, the body of the Earth prevents objects close to the Sun from being observed.

Polar twilight would not only present unique challenges but also unique opportunities including observational innovations relating to orbital elements as rotation is residual in the North pole region (zero at the North polar latitude itself). Just a normal perspective in an era that is less so.

I'm a poor writer, as no doubt many here have noticed on more than one
occaision; but what you publish here is indecipherable.

Haven't you considered how much your choice to not take the time to
organize your topics into complete subjects that you then explain in a
systematic and through way - hurts your agenda?

You can't do what you claim to want to do - on Usenet. We are not a
bunch of neo lithic tribal-types sitting around the campfire groping for
answers in darkness. We don't want to go back to that - even if you do.


Unless you haven't noticed, the neolithic astronomers 5200 years ago and their understanding of celestial motions surpass that of celestial sphere enthusiasts in so many different ways. They understood that the moon was lost to the glare of the Sun for a number of days during its monthly circuit of the Earth and preserved in a 1/4 ton stone surrounding a monument with an equinox alignment.

http://www.knowth.com/stooke/knowth4.gif

The same principle applies to the planets and stars as they become lost to the glare of the central and stationary Sun periodically, depending on whether orbital motions of the other planets are being discussed or the Earth's own orbital motion where the stars transition from an evening to morning appearance.

Now I regret that people don't take an expansive historical view of human involvement in astronomy but have boxed themselves into a narrow and manufactured history meant to promote the notions of theorists and the hobby of celestial sphere observing. I no longer maintain the pretense that society has any interest in interpretative astronomy where cause and effect match observations so I come here to the unmoderated Usenet to put form to perceptions using as much imaging as possible and with the greatest respect for older astronomical traditions.

People develop a more gentle perspective as they get older ,at least most people do while others don't or can't change as they are content with their lot.

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:43:34 PM UTC, Bill wrote:

Haven't you considered how much your choice to not take the time to
organize your topics into complete subjects that you then explain in a
systematic and through way - hurts your agenda?


Tell me, what agenda is that ?

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 3:05:53 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:43:34 PM UTC, Bill wrote:

Haven't you considered how much your choice to not take the time to
organize your topics into complete subjects that you then explain in a
systematic and through way - hurts your agenda?

Tell me, what agenda is that ?

Presumably, to communicate the truth about astronomy that has rejected it, and
instead followed people who promulgate views you believe to be mistaken.

John Savard

On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 19:00:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 3:05:53 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:43:34 PM UTC, Bill wrote:

Haven't you considered how much your choice to not take the time to
organize your topics into complete subjects that you then explain in a
systematic and through way - hurts your agenda?

Tell me, what agenda is that ?

Presumably, to communicate the truth about astronomy that has rejected it, and
instead followed people who promulgate views you believe to be mistaken.

John Savard

Agenda = purpose, goals...

Anything I do that works at cross purposes to me actually attaining my
goals will hurt my agenda -whatever it could be.

I'm not talking about astronomy per se; but large discrepancies between
stated/implied goals, and actions that would be, patently, contrary to
the realization of those goals.

If I wan't to fill my car with fuel, I can't do that very well while
laying in my bed, crying my heart out to others, about how my car has
no fuel. I need to get dressed, take my car where the fuel is - and
fuel the damn thing. If I just lay there ... who am I fooling?

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:09:27 PM UTC, Bill wrote:


Agenda = purpose, goals...


Look, the ability to condense long term imaging into time lapse where your normal judgments of motions at a human level kick in is all that is needed so that is very much a recent thing with the rise of the internet and the availability of imaging/video/animation.

When I first worked out the Earth had two separate rotations to the Sun there was no time lapse or imaging to support this conclusion but eventually it did emerge through the Hubble telescope and the motions of Uranus where you can see the planet spin in two distinct ways when the time lapse really speeds up -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE

I doubt very much that the usual visitors to this newsgroup would give two minutes of their time to observe where the rotations of the planet are condensed from 3 years into about 10 seconds thereby learning a lesson which can then be applied to the Earth as a matter of course.

Despite themselves, some observers here now understand how the illusory loop of Mars provides a different perspective than the actual loop of Venus as their normal judgment of motion scale up to the planets as they run their circuits with the Earth motion either having a huge influence in respect to the slower moving planets or very little with the faster moving Venus and Mercury -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/031..._tezel_big.jpg

VS

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg


As you can see, the direct/retrogrades motion of Mars is one thing but it takes a new approach to account for the back and forth motion of Venus against the background stars. In the absence of responsible astronomers in universities or space agencies what better place to plant the perspectives among those who treasure observational astronomy who can inform those who making a living from passing themselves off as astronomers.