What can I image in 5 minutes?

wrote in message
...
: On Dec 6, 6:09 am, Mark McIntyre wrote:
: Androcles wrote:
: The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".
:
: No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: term for these sets of bodies.
:
: ...but optical doubles are not always clearly indentified as such in
: some list(s) of double stars, apparently.
:
Just what IS a double star?
Sirius A and B that orbit a common barycentre?
Can't be that, too difficult to resolve.
Any old pair will do if they are both in the field of
view of the telescope?
I just want to know what the big deal is.
Some clown makes a list of stars 30 arc seconds apart
and another clown comes along and says you missed one?
How exciting!

On 5 Dec, 23:55, Mark McIntyre wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: ukastronomy wrote:
:
: (replying to oriel36)
:
: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged.

The distinction is blurred nowadays. Its still best not to respond
however. It only encourages him.

While you were left with nothing to do but complain about me ( I
really do not care) ,I was working on how to distinguish the expansion
of hotter temperature bands towards the poles as distinct from the
natural oscillation -

http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.en...6d67b3412dfad1

Of course you manage to believe an idea that no sane person will,
touch -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

It takes two poles and a stopwatch to expose that the framework
admired and used by empiricists is based on the notion that you can
justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth using the calendar
system.Maybe when there is agreement among genuine people that
Flamsteed made an error that is so awful that it takes a diseased mind
to carry on with the 'established fact".

I have stayed away from using the term 'illness' top people who cannot
reason properly,for my part,it is unfamiliarity which excuses most
here however that time has long since past.If you are too simpleminded
to grasp what went wrong and why it is dangerous for civilisation then
you do not belong anywhere near astronomy,climatology and any other
related discipline.

Androcles wrote:

Just what IS a double star?

The dictionary definition is "Pair of stars that appear close together".

This includes true binaries, as well as optical pairs.

Sirius A and B that orbit a common barycentre?
Can't be that, too difficult to resolve.

AFAIK, these are a binary system.

Any old pair will do if they are both in the field of
view of the telescope?

I think the usual rule is that if you can see them with the naked eye,
they're not an optical pair. They may well be a binary of course (/are/
there any binary systems that can be resolved with the naked eye? )

And no, this is NOT taken from wikipedia...

Androcles wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
:
: The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".
:
: No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: term for these sets of bodies.

So the Seven Sisters is an optical septuplet?

Yes.

What's the big deal with New York and London being less
that 30 arc minutes apart when flying from Luxembourg on
the same great circle, that I should call them double cities?

Can you *see* them both at the same time?

And by the way, they're a true binary - they're orbiting about a common
barycentre...
gd&raf,lm

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
:
: Just what IS a double star?
:
: The dictionary definition is "Pair of stars that appear close together".
:
: This includes true binaries, as well as optical pairs.

No binary but Sirius has ever "appeared close together".


:
: Sirius A and B that orbit a common barycentre?
: Can't be that, too difficult to resolve.
:
: AFAIK, these are a binary system.

Yes, Sirius is a binary, 8 light years distant and a 50 year period.
That makes it the only double by the dictionary definition, or else
ALL stars are doubles since they all appear close to another somewhere.

:
: Any old pair will do if they are both in the field of
: view of the telescope?
:
: I think the usual rule is that if you can see them with the naked eye,
: they're not an optical pair. They may well be a binary of course (/are/
: there any binary systems that can be resolved with the naked eye? )

Absolutely NOT. The ONLY binary resolved in a telescope is
Sirius and that only because A and B are well separated and the
system is nearby.

: And no, this is NOT taken from wikipedia...

I don't care where you got it, I'm not about to call Mars
and Jupiter a double planet just because I've seen them
"close together", so I'm asking what this strange fascination
with "double" stars is and will continue to put "double" in
quotation marks until supplied with a satisfactory answer.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: :
: : The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: : Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: : stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls
"doubles".
: :
: : No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: : term for these sets of bodies.
:
: So the Seven Sisters is an optical septuplet?
:
: Yes.

Then all stars are doubles. No matter which star you look at
there is another within 30 arc seconds of it.

:
: What's the big deal with New York and London being less
: that 30 arc minutes apart when flying from Luxembourg on
: the same great circle, that I should call them double cities?
:
: Can you *see* them both at the same time?
From the Moon, yes. They must a be double city.


:
: And by the way, they're a true binary - they're orbiting about a common
: barycentre...

Ok, and so is Bum****, Alabama.

Androcles wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: So the Seven Sisters is an optical septuplet?
:
: Yes.

I should have added that this is commonly called an asterism, or, if
large enough, a constellation.

Then all stars are doubles. No matter which star you look at
there is another within 30 arc seconds of it.

Indeed. I guess the point is, how many appear single stars visually but
resolve into a pair at moderate resolution?

From the Moon, yes. They must a be double city.

Indeed. From the moon, London, Croydon and Slough would appear one city
too. Thats kinda the point.

Ok, and so is Bumf**k, Alabama.

Childish.

Androcles wrote:

No binary but Sirius has ever "appeared close together".

Nonsense.


Yes, Sirius is a binary, 8 light years distant and a 50 year period.
That makes it the only double by the dictionary definition, or else
ALL stars are doubles since they all appear close to another somewhere.

Gibberish.

Absolutely NOT. The ONLY binary resolved in a telescope is
Sirius and that only because A and B are well separated and the
system is nearby.

You now seem to be trolling. Into the bitbucket with you, my bucko..


: And no, this is NOT taken from wikipedia...

I don't care where you got it, I'm not about to call Mars
and Jupiter a double planet just because I've seen them
"close together",

On the other hand, if mars and jupiter remained visually close together
for 100 years, what would you say? Assume you have no means of measuring
their distance away (ie put yourself in the shoes of the astronomers who
first catalogued doubles).

so I'm asking what this strange fascination
with "double" stars is and will continue to put "double" in
quotation marks until supplied with a satisfactory answer.

Allow me to put another word on quotes - "dork".

I am enjoying this,binary empiricists arguing over depth perception.

That was alway the problem with astreologers with telescopes where
all observations are pasted on a rotating celestial sphere and
especially the subhuman justification using the return of a star in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

Androcles,you have the same problem with depth perception as all non
astronomers have ,the fact that you can see the orbital motions of our
planet and that of the others around the central Sun is enough to
consign Isaac's silly view to the junkpile where it belongs -

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

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

Maybe you should instruct Mark here about the ultimate version of the
Flamsteed/Newton astrological notions - relativity.Of course you
both share the same error Flamsteed created before Newton arrived on
the scene and subsequently are both locked in a struggle and a cult
that is awful to behold.









On Dec 6, 8:19 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...: Androcles wrote:

: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: :
: : The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: : Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: : stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls
"doubles".
: :
: : No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: : term for these sets of bodies.
:
: So the Seven Sisters is an optical septuplet?
:
: Yes.

Then all stars are doubles. No matter which star you look at
there is another within 30 arc seconds of it.

:
: What's the big deal with New York and London being less
: that 30 arc minutes apart when flying from Luxembourg on
: the same great circle, that I should call them double cities?
:
: Can you *see* them both at the same time?
From the Moon, yes. They must a be double city.

:
: And by the way, they're a true binary - they're orbiting about a common
: barycentre...

Ok, and so is Bum****, Alabama.

On Dec 6, 8:19 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...: Androcles wrote:

: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: :
: : The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: : Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: : stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls
"doubles".
: :
: : No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: : term for these sets of bodies.
:
: So the Seven Sisters is an optical septuplet?
:
: Yes.

Then all stars are doubles. No matter which star you look at
there is another within 30 arc seconds of it.

:
: What's the big deal with New York and London being less
: that 30 arc minutes apart when flying from Luxembourg on
: the same great circle, that I should call them double cities?
:
: Can you *see* them both at the same time?
From the Moon, yes. They must a be double city.

:
: And by the way, they're a true binary - they're orbiting about a common
: barycentre...

Ok, and so is Bum****, Alabama.

I am enjoying this,binary empiricists arguing over depth perception.

That was always the problem with astrologers with telescopes where
all observations are pasted on a rotating celestial sphere and
especially the subhuman justification of the Earths axial and orbital
motions using the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.


Androcles,you and Mark here have the same problem with depth
perception as all non astronomers have ,the fact that you can see the
orbital motion of our planet and that of the others around the central
Sun is enough to consign Isaac's silly view to the junkpile where it
belongs -


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


" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

Maybe you should instruct Mark here about the ultimate version of the
Flamsteed/Newton astrological notions - relativity.Of course you
both share the same error Flamsteed created before Newton arrived on
the scene and buil;t his ballistic agenda on an astrological/
calendrical framework and subsequently you are both locked in a
struggle and a cult that is incredible as it is awful to behold.

Astronomy belongs to those who have depth perception ,understand the
main Copernican reasoning in that time lapse footage of Jupiter and
Saturn and know what is wrong with Newton's idiosyncratic approach.