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

Polar astronomy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 5th 18, 09:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,528
Default Polar astronomy

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:29:08 PM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
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.



Okay, I see you were referring to the direct/retrograde motions of the planets rather than the rotation responsible for the polar day/night cycle so I deleted the previous post.

The difference between the illusory loop of the slower moving planets and the actual loops of faster moving Venus and Mercury with the Earth's orbital motion providing the difference is an insight that came slowly, almost imperceptibly, with time.

I see the speed with which the difference had been adopted surprises even me for although many organizations are still unsure how to deal with the direct/retrogrades of Venus, at least they now isolate direct/retrogrades in an awkward way to the outer planets -

"This apparent erratic movement is called "retrograde motion." The illusion also happens with Jupiter and the other planets that orbit farther from the sun." NASA

https://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/nightsky/retrograde/

As direct/retrogrades are a result of the planets moving back and forth against the background stars, it should be no problem applying the same principles to Venus and Mercury as they run smaller loops around the Sun from our perspective so the Earth's orbital motion doesn't contribute to their direct/retrograde motions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

As far as I am concerned the explanation would work amazingly well with VR and it should be done by a large organization like the space agency but otherwise anyone with a talent can do the job. This "we all know the fact" is meaningless as an internet search of direct/retrogrades of Venus will throw up astrological websites exclusively or focus on the planet's rotation whereas orbital motion as seen from Earth is being considered.





Ads
  #22  
Old March 5th 18, 12:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default Polar astronomy

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:30:42 AM UTC, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

As direct/retrogrades are a result of the planets moving back and forth against the background stars, it should be no problem applying the same principles to Venus and Mercury as they run smaller loops around the Sun from our perspective so the Earth's orbital motion doesn't contribute to their direct/retrograde motions.


This is completely wrong. Here are the dates of 4 successive eastern elongations of Venus

Mar 29 2004
Nov 3 2005
Jun 9 2007
Jan 14 2009

If your ideas were correct, Venus would be back at its Eastern elongation after one orbit, 224 days. It isn't, because you are utterly wrong.

Unlike yourself, the ancient astronomers were aware of this fact - they set the epicycle of Venus to 584 days to account for it.
  #23  
Old March 5th 18, 06:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default Polar astronomy

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.
  #24  
Old March 5th 18, 08:19 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,528
Default Polar astronomy

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:29:08 PM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:

You miss my point:
We all know the fact you are trying to explain.....


Obviously not everyone does despite the fact that orbital direct/retrogrades haven't been touched since the year 1513 when the resolution for the slower moving planets emerged (Commentariolus). If you can distinguish between the open-ended illusory loop of Mars from the closed actual loop of Venus you have already come to understand what Galileo and the original Sun centered astronomers did not and that does nothing to diminish those astronomers. I do not even ask observers to know why their perspectives were incomplete but it does help to know why Venus ad Mercury do not trace out open-ended loops as previous views held -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYwNvjr7Lg


You can see why I choose to respond carefully when nuisances in this forum shove junk material like this in front of observers while a simple and clear loop dictates why we see phases, size increases/decreases and any other additional information supporting the heliocentric view of Venus seen from a slower moving Earth.

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

Again, all things come in season and that I have no influence over but there are fewer people mocking nowadays as the picture becomes clearer with time. There are no restrictions as to who develops the best narrative as that is the way things are done at the moment but clearly VR looks like the ideal medium for education and enjoyment purposes.













  #25  
Old March 6th 18, 09:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,528
Default Polar astronomy

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.











  #26  
Old March 6th 18, 02:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default Polar astronomy

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 8:19:07 PM UTC, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
If you can distinguish between the open-ended illusory loop of Mars from the closed actual loop of Venus you have already come to understand what Galileo and the original Sun centered astronomers did not


The maths that allowed Kepler to predict a transit of Venus predict exactly where Venus will be in relation to the fixed stars at any time, and guess what, plotting it does indeed show illusory loops.

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/movements.htm

You are hilariously wrong at every step of this imagined crusade.
  #27  
Old March 6th 18, 10:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default Polar astronomy

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 01:27:54 -0800 (PST), Gerald Kelleher wrote:

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.


Gerald, as is your habit, you sidestep everyone's responses, and then
try to springboard to carry on with your hodge-podge presentations.

My remarks to you had nothing to do with astronomy, beyond how you seek
to portray your interests in astronomy as something very important to
you.

My point also had NOTHING to do with the validity - or any lack thereof
- regrading ANY of your claims/views/opinions on any aspect of
astronomy. Nowhere did I make any request for you to explain your
viewpoint/opinions to me.

You don't need my participation for these "one-way" interactions of
yours.

--
Email address is a Spam trap.
  #28  
Old March 7th 18, 06:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,003
Default Polar astronomy

The loops we see in Mars' apparent motion are illusory; Mars orbits the Sun in an ellipse without loops.

Venus also orbits the Sun; the "loops" we see in its apparent motion from Earth are that real orbit.

The illusory part of its motion is instead the longer-period path resulting from it following the
apparent, and also illusory, motion of the Sun around the Earth.

How can he be hilariously wrong... where he is exactly right?
  #29  
Old March 7th 18, 06:12 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,003
Default Polar astronomy

I was perhaps unfair. He is not exactly right.

While Venus's real orbit around the Sun is a closed ellipse, once you add
the illusory annual motion, you get open loops, just as with Mars, in the
combined apparent motion, not closed ones.
  #30  
Old March 7th 18, 06:58 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default Polar astronomy

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 07:12:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
I was perhaps unfair. He is not exactly right.

While Venus's real orbit around the Sun is a closed ellipse, once you add
the illusory annual motion, you get open loops, just as with Mars, in the
combined apparent motion, not closed ones.


Does all of this make you cough "pole dancers?" ;-)
 




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
polar alignment MThomas Amateur Astronomy 13 August 2nd 06 01:17 PM
Polar Alignment Eric Johnson Amateur Astronomy 3 February 15th 05 05:18 PM
Polar Shift Jerry Pool Amateur Astronomy 4 January 15th 05 04:00 PM
Polar Alignment chansky Misc 6 October 27th 03 02:23 AM
Polar Alignment HELP Davey B UK Astronomy 8 October 24th 03 06:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.