The core question

The journey back in history to the construction of the original
scaffolding for contemporary timekeeping is a privilege as it
demonstrates just how sharp these ancient astronomers were and
particularly one astronomer who would have come up with the solution
we still use today in keeping days fixed within the annual cycle of
equinoxes and solstices.

The annual return of Sirius is a plain line of sight observation
insofar as the Earth moves around the Sun,certain stars are
periodically going to be lost behind the Sun,it has no stellar
circumpolar characteristics whatsoever,again,it is strictly a
consequence of the orbital motion of the Earth free and clear of daily
rotation.The greatest difficulty observers have presently with
interpretative astronomy is that they are so accustomed to working off
a rotating celestial sphere that the orbital motion of the Earth is
more or less anonymous however any online orrery tends to ease the
transition from Ra/Dec observing to a more productive use of the
orbital motion of the Earth in relation to all other objects in the
solar system whether the moving planets or the central Sun -

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar/action?sys=-Si

To participate in the type of astronomy which links cause and effect
between planetary dynamics and terrestrial sciences requires that the
astronomer recognize separate motions whereas for centuries we have
people bundling daily and orbital motions together using timekeeping
averages and creating a truly awful and meaningless homocentric
wreck,anyone who reads Sky and Telescope will be struck at all the
homocentric references to the planets based on individual
horizons,sunrise/sunset and the fixed ideology of above/below whereas
even the geocentric astronomers had dispensed with above/below and
treated the motions of the planets within the context of a celestial
arena.

This is a particularly delicate time in astronomy,the new guys working
off computers and civil timekeeping couldn't care less about astronomy
even if they pay lip service to it while the older
generation,comprising most of what is left of sci.astro.amateur,either
choose not to adapt to a better approach to the celestial arena or
simply can't for various reasons.

So,the original structure is an orbital line of sight observation,if
the Egyptians could distinguish an annual orbital feature from a daily
feature then so can everyone else -

"..on account of the precession of the rising of Sirius by one day in
the course of 4 years... it shall be, that the year of 360 days and
the 5 days added to their end, so one day be from this day after every
4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year, whereby all men
shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards
the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in
the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now corrected and
improved .." Canopus Decree

These men were speaking in terms of orbits so it is time for
comtemporaries to escape that rotating celestial sphere even if it
provides the convenience of making predictions to the positions and
motions of objects or astronomical events such as eclipses,transits
and so on.Nothing is going to be lost,all that happens is that those
who use celestial sphere observing for identifying celestial objects
no longer hinder those who free up the celestial arena from celestial
sphere geometry.

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.


Yes or no?

On Feb 23, 10:39*pm, "Martin R. Howell"
wrote:

Quoting palsing:
HA! Best reply of the year...

YMMV. However, I doubt that Oriel is posting here for the _frisson_,
let alone in such an... explicit... fashion. I believe he is sincere
in his view that astronomy has gone the wrong way.

And since this "wrong way" appears to be that we have chosen to leave
God out of our thinking, thus going along with the atheisic celestial
mechanics of Laplace, indeed you won't reach him with vulgarities -
they will only confirm his belief in his superiority, moral and
otherwise, over the rest of the world.

John Savard