A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th 17, 09:28 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

The creation of absolute/relative space and motion was based on the notion of apparent and true motion while using a celestial sphere framework. The ideology of an equivalency comes from Huygens in his original treatise on the creation of the average 24 hour day using the Equation of Time -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Aequation.." Huygens

I have covered what is wrong with the assertions in that passage many times while being mindful that these were the first strides towards accurate clocks, the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system.

The stony silence of centuries is removed to make way for a new software program that will do what RA/Dec cannot in being able to model the Earth's motions with special attention to cause and effect . This is the 3 part series I promised.
Ads
  #2  
Old November 15th 17, 07:00 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

In the end it comes down to the most simple question imaginable and in the 21st century there are no excuses for getting it wrong or ignoring the actual principles of timekeeping in tandem with the Lat/Long system .

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+long+does+i...h+to+turn+once

Computer modelling is a tool which will be held back by the clockwork solar system of the theorists (RA/Dec) however this period has now come to an end. In straightforward thinking, the new software program will subtract any rotational element which is wrapped up in the 24 hour weekday and its anchor in the natural noon cycle where the natural variations arise from an orbital surface rotation and therefore orbital motion.

It means that observers can enjoy the transition of celestial objects from either the left to right or right to left of the stationary Sun due to their intrinsic orbital motions or because of the Earth's own orbital motion. No longer the 'fixed stars' of RA/Dec but the fixed and stationary central star of our parent Sun.

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...rip=all&w=2000

That image was taken a day ago as Venus travels in behind the Sun and will reappear as an evening appearance as it moves from right to left of the Sun while the Earth will catch up with Jupiter hence that planet will not make the transition shortly but when it does it will transition from left to right of the Sun. The principle here is that everything is referenced to the distant Sun and not the local horizon and especially not using a celestial sphere framework.
  #3  
Old November 15th 17, 07:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,596
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 10:01:02 PM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

In the end it comes down to the most simple question imaginable and in the 21st century there are no excuses for getting it wrong or ignoring the actual principles of timekeeping in tandem with the Lat/Long system .


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+long+does+i...h+to+turn+once


Well, if you had actually visited this web page, you would have found the answer!

23 56 04
  #4  
Old November 15th 17, 08:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 6:41:06 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 10:01:02 PM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

In the end it comes down to the most simple question imaginable and in the 21st century there are no excuses for getting it wrong or ignoring the actual principles of timekeeping in tandem with the Lat/Long system .


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+long+does+i...h+to+turn+once


Well, if you had actually visited this web page, you would have found the answer!

23 56 04


You are welcome to your idea that rotation around Polaris has a greater relevance than rotation to our central star and the intricate principles which extract the 24 hour weekday as an average and then neatly transferred to rotation as a constant via the Lat/Long system as a rate of 15 degrees per hour. I can safely leave you and the theorists to your own devices and concerns as I have seen no interest in coming to terms with the origins of RA/Dec modelling.

The tragedy for you is that I recognize the calendar convenience of a clockwork solar system where there is no indication as to what is moving around what but is useful for predictions. It is useless for modelling and the contemporary tools like computers which can make observations easy to grasp and especially for cause and effect. Unfortunately you can't associate one 24 hour weekday with one rotation of the planet and all its daily effects on your own body clock -

https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newsc...-2880-1000.jpg

We turn with the planet and this is what makes life possible -

“all things created have an order in themselves, and this begets the form that lets the universe resemble God.”
― Dante Alighieri, Paradiso

  #5  
Old November 16th 17, 08:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

The manufacturing of apparent/true motions via absolute/relative space and motion was part and parcel of RA/Dec modelling. The original Sun centered astronomers would have balked at such a suggestion even though they were deficient in the matter of direct/retrogrades of the inner planets.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160915.html

The geocentric astronomers saw the planets periodically accomplish loops so that Copernicus could rightly identify these illusions as the Earth overtaking the slower moving planets.

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

The faster moving Venus displays a loop that is actual and not an illusion as dictated by it size increase and phases so these two differing perspectives sandwich the Earth's orbital motion.

The phony concept of apparent/ true motion by Newton surfaces as an unnecessary hypothetical observation that is out of context with the original arguments for a moving Earth and a stationary Sun -

“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

This would tie in with Huygen's error of equating the motion of the Earth equivalent to the annual motion of the Sun in terms of the Equation of Time -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy." Huygens

This was converted by Newton into a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency by forcibly introducing an idea of apparent/true motions in context of direct/retrograde motions -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

It doesn't matter if ignorance,unfamiliarity or silliness is pleaded, it all reduces to a celestial sphere or clockwork solar system that intrudes into astronomical methods and insights. What began with a misuse of timekeeping has now spread to computers and software.

  #6  
Old November 17th 17, 03:11 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,596
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 11:21:20 AM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

It doesn't matter if ignorance,unfamiliarity or silliness is pleaded...


So, are you pleading ignorance, unfamiliarity or silliness? That, after all, would explain your penchant for rambling on ad nauseum about subject matter that you know virtually nothing about...
  #7  
Old November 17th 17, 07:33 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,619
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 12:08:47 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

You are welcome to your idea that rotation around Polaris has a greater
relevance than rotation to our central star


Greater relevance in what sense?

When I get up in the morning, when I eat my meals, that's guided by rotation to
the central star; so are the clock cycles of other living things. That's a lot
of relevance, while the apparent rotation of the stars around the planets only
affects things like pointing a telescope.

But the Earth's orbit around the Sun is an ellipse, not a circle. The Equation
of Time is the result of the 24-hour daily cycle of sunlight deriving from a
compound motion - the Earth's own rotation as a physical object, and the *non-
uniform* change in the direction from the Earth to the Sun over the course of a
year.

If the Earth's rotation were to be properly defined in relation to the Sun, then
why does it speed up and slow down in concert with its orbit around the Sun so
as to make stellar circumpolar motion, as opposed to the Sun's apparent motion,
regular like clockwork?

Retrogrades show that the apparent motion of planets around the Earth is a
compound motion, while their motion around the Sun is a simple motion.

The Equation of Time shows that the motion of the Earth gauged against the fixed
stars is a simple motion, while the apparent motion of the Sun in our skies is a
compound motion.

John Savard
  #8  
Old November 17th 17, 08:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:11:19 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 11:21:20 AM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

It doesn't matter if ignorance,unfamiliarity or silliness is pleaded...


So, are you pleading ignorance, unfamiliarity or silliness? That, after all, would explain your penchant for rambling on ad nauseum about subject matter that you know virtually nothing about...


Your natural intuitive faculties are simply so weak that anything outside magnification and identification of celestial objects within a rotating celestial sphere framework is going to register as distress rather than satisfaction.

When you encounter Newton's absolute/relative time, space and motion, it is rigging observations in tandem with timekeeping to suit RA/Dec modelling so even cause and effect of each weekday rotation is sacrificed to maintain observations of objects rising and setting each day. It has become worse as this clockwork solar system has spread to computer modelling so even observations are manipulated to suit nasty notions like the 'Sun crossing the celestial equator' -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

If you have decent intuitive faculties much less a powerful sense of what works and what doesn't, you would be repulsed by that pivoting circle of illumination, a spinning moon, the awful subversion of direct/retrogrades resolutions and many other things.



  #9  
Old November 17th 17, 07:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,596
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 11:37:08 PM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

If you have decent intuitive faculties much less a powerful sense of what works and what doesn't, you would be repulsed by that pivoting circle of illumination, a spinning moon, the awful subversion of direct/retrogrades resolutions and many other things.


I fear that your own so-called intuitive facilities have led you far astray, to the point where you cannot understand the beauty of both the solar day and its equation of time and the sidereal day with its own special place in astronomy.

Regarding the spinning moon, well, you just don't understand that virtually everything in the universe rotates with respect to something, and the moon is no exception...
  #10  
Old November 17th 17, 07:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Focus on RA/Dec modeling concluded

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:30:14 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 11:37:08 PM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

If you have decent intuitive faculties much less a powerful sense of what works and what doesn't, you would be repulsed by that pivoting circle of illumination, a spinning moon, the awful subversion of direct/retrogrades resolutions and many other things.


I fear that your own so-called intuitive facilities have led you far astray, to the point where you cannot understand the beauty of both the solar day and its equation of time


You mean this one as absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

What did I tell you about the flaw in Huygen's description of the Equation of Time which is simply a timekeeping facility which anchors each rotation to noon and originally created the average 24 hour day and Lat/Long system in the process.

Glad you think Newton's description of absolute/relative time is still beautiful for you but I 'fear' that will leave you isolated when it comes to relativity which is merely a silly extension of the clockwork solar system. The intuitive faculty informs a person in terms of repulsion or satisfaction in astronomical matters but that is something you do not have and many like you.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Geological modeling Gerald Kelleher Amateur Astronomy 0 January 12th 17 01:36 PM
Climate modeling Gerald Kelleher Amateur Astronomy 0 July 20th 16 09:38 PM
Modeling required oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 33 September 15th 11 07:27 PM
DLR in C5 prime focus: cannot get fully in-focus images RePete Amateur Astronomy 5 October 30th 06 12:01 PM
modeling the Si-based life Amirsaman Misc 4 March 10th 04 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.