#1
|
|||
|
|||
precession
Seeing the previous posts mentioning Precession prompted me to wonder what
is the actual lowest star we can see from a certain location over the full precession cycle. for example I know that Vega gets close to the pole in the cycle so I think this much mean that stars around the same Right ascension would be higher in the sky than now and thus lower stars that are currenly too far south to rise may do so, for example Theta Scorpio at -43% may be visible and other stars we currently see may then be too low to see. so if you have a latitude of 52% what would be the lowest star it could be that I am completley wrong about this assumption. thanks Paul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
precession
"Paul Forsdick" wrote in message
... | Seeing the previous posts mentioning Precession prompted me to wonder what | is the actual lowest star we can see from a certain location over the full | precession cycle. | for example I know that Vega gets close to the pole in the cycle so I think | this much mean that stars around the same Right ascension would be higher in | the sky than now and thus lower stars that are currenly too far south to | rise may do so, for example Theta Scorpio at -43% may be visible and other | stars we currently see may then be too low to see. | so if you have a latitude of 52% what would be the lowest star | | it could be that I am completley wrong about this assumption. | Let's think it out. Precession moves the equinox and solstice points around the entire ecliptic once in the precession cycle. So every point on the ecliptic will at some time be north of the celestial equator by the inclination of the earth's axis (currently just over 23 degrees, but it does vary a degree or so either way). At the moment this "furthest north" point lies near the border between Gemini and Taurus. So we in the Northern Hemisphere currently get the best view we can of the area around Orion, and for a significant part of the precession cycle the brightest star - Sirius - would be invisible from the British Isles. But by a similar argument for most of the cycle Scorpio would be further north than it is now and we currently get an unusually poor view of it. If you are at 52 N, you can see every star less than 38 degrees south of the celestial equator (90 degrees - your latitude). Seeing as every part of the ecliptic will at some time be 23 degrees north of the celestial equator, it follows that at some time in the precessional cycle every star less than 23 + 38 = 61 degrees south of the *ecliptic* will come into view. In some parts of the sky this will be out a bit due to "North" and "South" being at various times not exactly where they are now - I thought I'd better mention it before someone else does. But if you have a star atlas with the South Ecliptic Pole marked, or "planetarium" software which will show an ecliptic coordinate grid, to a reasonable approximation you will (eventually) be able to see every star more than about 30 degrees from the South Ecliptic Pole. This is actually over 90% of the sky. [If there were no precession or the poles were at right angles to the ecliptic place this figure would be about 80% - what we currently see throughout the year. This may seem surprising as we are so far from the equator, but spherical geometry means that half of the sky is within 30 degrees of the celestial equator and 71% within 45 degrees, plus we will see half of the remainder as being round the pole nearest us.] Move 29 degrees nearer the equator so you reach the tropics, and everywhere within the tropics you can at some point in the precessional cycle see every star in the sky. And, of course, at the equator you see all the stars in the sky at some time each year. So in about 10 000 years time we will get a wonderful view of Scorpio, which will take the place Taurus and Gemini currently occupy. At other times we will be able to see the Southern Cross and various of the "Southern Birds". But the area around Argo we will never see much better than we do now - we currently get almost the best view we can of this part of the sky. And if you want to see the Magellanic Clouds, I am afraid it is either a visit to places south of here or a very long wait for them to "orbit" to our side of the Galaxy... -- - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
precession
On Dec 31 2009, 11:53*pm, "Yokel"
wrote: "Paul Forsdick" wrote in message ... | Seeing the previous posts mentioning Precession prompted me to wonder what | is the actual lowest star we can see from a certain location over the full | precession cycle. | for example I know that Vega gets close to the pole in the cycle so I think | this much mean that stars around the same Right ascension would be higher in | the sky *than now and thus lower stars *that are currenly too far south to | rise may do so, for example Theta Scorpio at -43% may be visible and other | stars we currently see may then be too low to see. | so if you have a latitude of 52% what would be the lowest star | | it could be that I am completley wrong about this assumption. | Let's think it out. Precession moves the equinox and solstice points around the entire ecliptic once in the precession cycle. *So every point on the ecliptic will at some time be north of the celestial equator by the inclination of the earth's axis (currently just over 23 degrees, but it does vary a degree or so either way). You are all over the place but that is not surprising when you reference everything off rotational orientation (tilt) or combine it with the orbital motion of the Earth,in your case,you are simply a happy astrologer regurgitating what you learned without thinking about the topic properly.So,this is 2010 and are all going to behave like intelligent people for a change and not like the monkeys in the late 17th century who botched everything. Answer me this,what causes the seasonal appearance and disappearance of the certain constellations and I mean the specifics of orbital motion and not some 'sidereal time' junk which tries to explain the apparent motion of the constellations around Polaris via planetary dynamics ?. At the moment this "furthest north" point lies near the border between Gemini and Taurus. *So we in the Northern Hemisphere currently get the best view we can of the area around Orion, and for a significant part of the precession cycle the brightest star - Sirius - would be invisible from the British Isles. *But by a similar argument for most of the cycle Scorpio would be further north than it is now and we currently get an unusually poor view of it. If you are at 52 N, you can see every star less than 38 degrees south of the celestial equator (90 degrees - your latitude). *Seeing as every part of the ecliptic will at some time be 23 degrees north of the celestial equator, it follows that at some time in the precessional cycle every star less than 23 + 38 = 61 degrees south of the *ecliptic* will come into view. *In some parts of the sky this will be out a bit due to "North" and "South" being at various times not exactly where they are now - I thought I'd better mention it before someone else does. *But if you have a star atlas with the South Ecliptic Pole marked, or "planetarium" software which will show an ecliptic coordinate grid, to a reasonable approximation you will (eventually) be able to see every star more than about 30 degrees from the South Ecliptic Pole.. This is actually over 90% of the sky. [If there were no precession or the poles were at right angles to the ecliptic place this figure would be about 80% - what we currently see throughout the year. This may seem surprising as we are so far from the equator, but spherical geometry means that half of the sky is within 30 degrees of the celestial equator and 71% within 45 degrees, plus we will see half of the remainder as being round the pole nearest us.] Move 29 degrees nearer the equator so you reach the tropics, and everywhere within the tropics you can at some point in the precessional cycle see every star in the sky. *And, of course, at the equator you see all the stars in the sky at some time each year. So in about 10 000 years time we will get a wonderful view of Scorpio, which will take the place Taurus and Gemini currently occupy. *At other times we will be able to see the Southern Cross and various of the "Southern Birds". But the area around Argo we will never see much better than we do now - we currently get almost the best view we can of this part of the sky. *And if you want to see the Magellanic Clouds, I am afraid it is either a visit to places south of here or a very long wait for them to "orbit" to our side of the Galaxy... -- * * * * * * * * - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
precession
Hi Yokel
Thanks for the detailed Information I thought I was on the right track paul "Yokel" wrote in message ... "Paul Forsdick" wrote in message ... | Seeing the previous posts mentioning Precession prompted me to wonder what | is the actual lowest star we can see from a certain location over the full | precession cycle. | for example I know that Vega gets close to the pole in the cycle so I think | this much mean that stars around the same Right ascension would be higher in | the sky than now and thus lower stars that are currenly too far south to | rise may do so, for example Theta Scorpio at -43% may be visible and other | stars we currently see may then be too low to see. | so if you have a latitude of 52% what would be the lowest star | | it could be that I am completley wrong about this assumption. | Let's think it out. Precession moves the equinox and solstice points around the entire ecliptic once in the precession cycle. So every point on the ecliptic will at some time be north of the celestial equator by the inclination of the earth's axis (currently just over 23 degrees, but it does vary a degree or so either way). At the moment this "furthest north" point lies near the border between Gemini and Taurus. So we in the Northern Hemisphere currently get the best view we can of the area around Orion, and for a significant part of the precession cycle the brightest star - Sirius - would be invisible from the British Isles. But by a similar argument for most of the cycle Scorpio would be further north than it is now and we currently get an unusually poor view of it. If you are at 52 N, you can see every star less than 38 degrees south of the celestial equator (90 degrees - your latitude). Seeing as every part of the ecliptic will at some time be 23 degrees north of the celestial equator, it follows that at some time in the precessional cycle every star less than 23 + 38 = 61 degrees south of the *ecliptic* will come into view. In some parts of the sky this will be out a bit due to "North" and "South" being at various times not exactly where they are now - I thought I'd better mention it before someone else does. But if you have a star atlas with the South Ecliptic Pole marked, or "planetarium" software which will show an ecliptic coordinate grid, to a reasonable approximation you will (eventually) be able to see every star more than about 30 degrees from the South Ecliptic Pole. This is actually over 90% of the sky. [If there were no precession or the poles were at right angles to the ecliptic place this figure would be about 80% - what we currently see throughout the year. This may seem surprising as we are so far from the equator, but spherical geometry means that half of the sky is within 30 degrees of the celestial equator and 71% within 45 degrees, plus we will see half of the remainder as being round the pole nearest us.] Move 29 degrees nearer the equator so you reach the tropics, and everywhere within the tropics you can at some point in the precessional cycle see every star in the sky. And, of course, at the equator you see all the stars in the sky at some time each year. So in about 10 000 years time we will get a wonderful view of Scorpio, which will take the place Taurus and Gemini currently occupy. At other times we will be able to see the Southern Cross and various of the "Southern Birds". But the area around Argo we will never see much better than we do now - we currently get almost the best view we can of this part of the sky. And if you want to see the Magellanic Clouds, I am afraid it is either a visit to places south of here or a very long wait for them to "orbit" to our side of the Galaxy... -- - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
precession
It looks like we can would be be able to see Achernar in about 6000 years
and alpha and beta Centauri in about 11,000 years so it would just be Canopus which never rises of the brightest stars "Yokel" wrote in message ... "Paul Forsdick" wrote in message ... | Seeing the previous posts mentioning Precession prompted me to wonder what | is the actual lowest star we can see from a certain location over the full | precession cycle. | for example I know that Vega gets close to the pole in the cycle so I think | this much mean that stars around the same Right ascension would be higher in | the sky than now and thus lower stars that are currenly too far south to | rise may do so, for example Theta Scorpio at -43% may be visible and other | stars we currently see may then be too low to see. | so if you have a latitude of 52% what would be the lowest star | | it could be that I am completley wrong about this assumption. | Let's think it out. Precession moves the equinox and solstice points around the entire ecliptic once in the precession cycle. So every point on the ecliptic will at some time be north of the celestial equator by the inclination of the earth's axis (currently just over 23 degrees, but it does vary a degree or so either way). At the moment this "furthest north" point lies near the border between Gemini and Taurus. So we in the Northern Hemisphere currently get the best view we can of the area around Orion, and for a significant part of the precession cycle the brightest star - Sirius - would be invisible from the British Isles. But by a similar argument for most of the cycle Scorpio would be further north than it is now and we currently get an unusually poor view of it. If you are at 52 N, you can see every star less than 38 degrees south of the celestial equator (90 degrees - your latitude). Seeing as every part of the ecliptic will at some time be 23 degrees north of the celestial equator, it follows that at some time in the precessional cycle every star less than 23 + 38 = 61 degrees south of the *ecliptic* will come into view. In some parts of the sky this will be out a bit due to "North" and "South" being at various times not exactly where they are now - I thought I'd better mention it before someone else does. But if you have a star atlas with the South Ecliptic Pole marked, or "planetarium" software which will show an ecliptic coordinate grid, to a reasonable approximation you will (eventually) be able to see every star more than about 30 degrees from the South Ecliptic Pole. This is actually over 90% of the sky. [If there were no precession or the poles were at right angles to the ecliptic place this figure would be about 80% - what we currently see throughout the year. This may seem surprising as we are so far from the equator, but spherical geometry means that half of the sky is within 30 degrees of the celestial equator and 71% within 45 degrees, plus we will see half of the remainder as being round the pole nearest us.] Move 29 degrees nearer the equator so you reach the tropics, and everywhere within the tropics you can at some point in the precessional cycle see every star in the sky. And, of course, at the equator you see all the stars in the sky at some time each year. So in about 10 000 years time we will get a wonderful view of Scorpio, which will take the place Taurus and Gemini currently occupy. At other times we will be able to see the Southern Cross and various of the "Southern Birds". But the area around Argo we will never see much better than we do now - we currently get almost the best view we can of this part of the sky. And if you want to see the Magellanic Clouds, I am afraid it is either a visit to places south of here or a very long wait for them to "orbit" to our side of the Galaxy... -- - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
precession
"Paul Forsdick" wrote in message
... | It looks like we can would be be able to see Achernar in about 6000 years | and alpha and beta Centauri in about 11,000 years so it would just be | Canopus which never rises of the brightest stars Sounds reasonable to me. Canopus is close to the Magellanic Clouds and both of those are too close to the South Ecliptic Pole to ever be seen from these shores. There is a far better way to see Achernar, etc. which does not involve a wait of 6000 years. A few years ago I booked a holiday to the wild and remote places of Central and NW Australia. Until you have seen the stars from there or a similar remote location (if your night vision is up to it, the stars shed so much light you can walk around purely by starlight), you cannot really know how wonderful the night sky is. I can remember waking up in the middle of the night in Purnulu (also known as the "Bungle Bungles") and seeing even the patchy clouds glowing by starlight - this was also the first time I saw Achernar with my own eyes. Another night in Windjana Gorge (on the road between Derby and Fitzroy Crossing) you could make out the pattern of grass patches and sand on the desert floor by the stars. If you ever get the chance, don't miss it - it beats running the planetarium software! The one thing that did puzzle some of my travelling companions who had come from Sydney is why we couldn't see the Southern Cross during the evenings - we were there in October. The answer being that the Southern Cross is far enough from the current South Celestial Pole that it sets for part of each day from tropical Australia, and in October that happens to be the evenings. But at that time of year Scorpio was a wondrous sight in the evening western sky, especially as at the time I was there Venus and Mars were also on display to the west with Jupiter and Saturn also visible. -- - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
precession
On Jan 3, 8:38*pm, "Yokel" wrote:
The one thing that did puzzle some of my travelling companions who had come from Sydney is why we couldn't see the Southern Cross during the evenings - we were there in October. *The answer being that the Southern Cross is far enough from the current South Celestial Pole that it sets for part of each day from tropical Australia, and in October that happens to be the evenings. Can't any of you simply stop referencing planetary dynamics to the apparent motion of the constellations around Polaris and treat the matter like grown men for a change ?. The seasonal disappearance of certain constellations is exactly just that,a consequence of the orbital motion of the Earth and the slowing 360 degree turning of the planet with respect to the central Sun over the course of an annual cycle and quite apart from the independent motion of daily rotation. Here is what you do,get a broom handle representing both daily rotation and its orientation 'tilt'.Walk around a central object while keeping the broom pointed in one direction and you will discover that as you 'orbitally' complete a circuit you must walk forwards,then sideways,backwards and forwards to complete a circuit and changing the orientation of your body to the central object all the while (360 degree orbital component). There are just two components to consider,count them,just two - the Earth orbits the central Sun and orbitally turns through 360 degrees rather than keeping the same face to the Sun,this is what causes the seasonal disappearance of certain constellations,nothing more and nothing less,if you can't interpret the images of Uranus on this orbital point then believe whatever you wish - http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg 99.999 % of people will not get it straight away but the change in orientation is a signature of the orbital motion of Uranus as it turns through 360 degrees and takes over 80 years to complete it. But at that time of year Scorpio was a wondrous sight in the evening western sky, especially as at the time I was there Venus and Mars were also on display to the west with Jupiter and Saturn also visible. -- * * * * * * * * - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
precession
Hi Yokel
I think I may well try to do that in a few years I notice the people in Britain in about the year 11350 will get Scorpio very high but they will lose Rigel and by the year 12350 the belt of Orion will not rise and by 15000 Betelgeuse is only about 1 degree above the hozizon "Yokel" wrote in message ... "Paul Forsdick" wrote in message ... | It looks like we can would be be able to see Achernar in about 6000 years | and alpha and beta Centauri in about 11,000 years so it would just be | Canopus which never rises of the brightest stars Sounds reasonable to me. Canopus is close to the Magellanic Clouds and both of those are too close to the South Ecliptic Pole to ever be seen from these shores. There is a far better way to see Achernar, etc. which does not involve a wait of 6000 years. A few years ago I booked a holiday to the wild and remote places of Central and NW Australia. Until you have seen the stars from there or a similar remote location (if your night vision is up to it, the stars shed so much light you can walk around purely by starlight), you cannot really know how wonderful the night sky is. I can remember waking up in the middle of the night in Purnulu (also known as the "Bungle Bungles") and seeing even the patchy clouds glowing by starlight - this was also the first time I saw Achernar with my own eyes. Another night in Windjana Gorge (on the road between Derby and Fitzroy Crossing) you could make out the pattern of grass patches and sand on the desert floor by the stars. If you ever get the chance, don't miss it - it beats running the planetarium software! The one thing that did puzzle some of my travelling companions who had come from Sydney is why we couldn't see the Southern Cross during the evenings - we were there in October. The answer being that the Southern Cross is far enough from the current South Celestial Pole that it sets for part of each day from tropical Australia, and in October that happens to be the evenings. But at that time of year Scorpio was a wondrous sight in the evening western sky, especially as at the time I was there Venus and Mars were also on display to the west with Jupiter and Saturn also visible. -- - Yokel - "Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
precession
Paul Forsdick wrote:
Hi Yokel I think I may well try to do that in a few years I notice the people in Britain in about the year 11350 will get Scorpio very high but they will lose Rigel and by the year 12350 the belt of Orion will not rise and by 15000 Betelgeuse is only about 1 degree above the hozizon Top posting?? Anyway, I wil start worrying about that in about 9000 years. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Precession of the Solstices | Dennis Allen | Amateur Astronomy | 33 | October 14th 09 02:56 AM |
Precession | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 1 | July 15th 06 06:58 PM |
The Earth precession IS NOT DUE TO THE SUN | Abel Cavasi | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 08:52 PM |
progressive precession | wahid | Misc | 5 | January 31st 06 04:26 PM |
About precession | Carsten Troelsgaard | Astronomy Misc | 6 | November 3rd 04 07:36 PM |