The planet Mercury is about to make its best apparition of the year

NASA Science News for Feb. 8, 2013
The planet Mercury is about to make its best apparition of the year for
backyard sky watchers. Look west at sunset for a piercing pink planet
surrounded by twilight blue.

FULL STORY:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...eb_pinkplanet/

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=117lEleTeiY

On Friday, February 8, 2013 10:12:35 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Feb. 8, 2013

The planet Mercury is about to make its best apparition of the year for

backyard sky watchers. Look west at sunset for a piercing pink planet

surrounded by twilight blue.



FULL STORY:





http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...eb_pinkplanet/



VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=117lEleTeiY

Conjunction this PM was exquisite from Chiefland, Florida.

On Feb 9, 4:12*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Feb. 8, 2013
The planet Mercury is about to make its best apparition of the year for
backyard sky watchers. Look west at sunset for a piercing pink planet
surrounded by twilight blue.

FULL STORY:http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...13/08feb_pinkp...

VIDEO:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=117lEleTeiY

The descriptions of the agency are,as usual,homocentric -

"As February unfolds, Mercury will rise higher in the sunset sky,
brightening as it ascends. From February 11th through 21st, the "pink
planet" will be visible for as much as an hour after sunset. February
11th is a date of special interest: a slender crescent Moon will
appear straight above Mercury, providing guidance for novice sky
watchers." nasa

The idea is not to suffocate discussion but use it as an opportunity
to look at how planets and stars emerge from the glare of the Sun due
to their motion or that of the Earth.Is it so difficult to adjust to a
21st century perspective using modern imaging where a planet swerves
around the Sun and because Mercury is so close,it doesn't leave the
vicinity of the Sun like the outer planets ?.Venus is spectacular on
this account -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg

A revolution in human endeavor is not accomplished by convincing
people of the errors of their ways,they happen because new
circumstances arise and in the case of astronomy where things make
sense and often for the first time through modern imaging which
certainly introduces that new element which is crucial to return
astronomy to a stable narrative.The ability to improvise and send
information in different directions is truly the sign of a
creativity,these improvisations are not done by abandoning rules but
rather taking note of the limitations of older perspectives,for
instance,while the Earth's planetary dynamics obliterated the older
geocentric perspectives,the geocentric vehicle was used to arrive at a
point of departure for a whole new astronomy.The reader doesn't need
any special ability to make sense of the images of Venus as it moves
around the Sun and closer to our planet as it gets larger and brighter
and so it is with Mercury presently.

It is not a matter of restructuring astronomy or science but something
even bigger yet it requires people who know not only the details of
what went badly wrong but why it is important to get right and move on
quickly.People are not going to forfeit their ideologies because their
jobs depend on them however nothing is lost by adopting a better
approach if that approach is glimpsed for what it is.The Ra/Dec
perspective of ascending and descending planets have to go aside from
casual observers only interested in identifying planets and stars
because planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects depend on the
ability to move between observations and interpretations without the
slightest objection,just as Galileo once noted -

" He [Copernicus] thus speaks of “sunrise” and “sunset,” of the
“rising and setting” of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the
ecliptic and of variations in the equinoctial points, of the mean
motion and variations in motion of the sun, and so on. All these
things really relate to the earth, but since we are fixed to the earth
and consequently share in its every motion, we cannot discover them in
the earth directly, and are obliged to refer them to the heavenly
bodies in which they make their appearance to us. Hence we name them
as if they took place where they appear to us to take place; and from
this one may see how natural it is to accommodate things to our
customary way of seeing them." Galileo

It is time for these well paid academics within nasa to earn their pay
or get out of the way.

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?

It what has to be one of the cruelest statements ever to appear in any
form of media,almost a form of intellectual torture,the inability to
mesh the 24 hour AM/PM cycle with the Lat/Long system produces what is
in effect a monster with no logic or reason to it and one the wider
world can no longer support -

"Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is slightly less, or
1,669.8 km/h. This is obtained by dividing Earth's equatorial
circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one circumference
unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space, so the
corresponding time unit must be a sidereal hour. This is confirmed by
multiplying by the number of sidereal days in one mean solar day,
1.002 737 909 350 795 which yields the equatorial speed in mean solar
hours given above of 1,674.4 km/h.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rotation


The Earth's equatorial circumference is 40,075.16 kilometers and
without getting into any references, the normal mind accepts that it
turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour or 1669.8 km insofar as that
value multiples by 24 hours/360 degrees gives the actual dimensions of
the circumference whereas a mindnumbing value of 1674.4 km per hour
gives a nonsensical circumference value for 24 hours of rotation.

Doesn't anybody ever get sick to their stomach when the most basic of
basic planetary facts is assigned the wrong rotational speed ?.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

Doesn't anybody ever get sick to their stomach when the most basic of
basic planetary facts is assigned the wrong rotational speed ?.

===========================================
Puke it up then, Kelleher.
Vomit, because the right rotational speed is 361 degrees per day as
everyone else but you knows; 360 degrees to face the same stars
and one more degree to face the sun as the Earth moves around it.
You'll remain sick to your small intestine and then your colon until
you do, you insane *******.
Answer Martin Nicholson's question, you ignorant imbecile.


-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

The 24 hour system shares its principles with the Lat/Long system and
that an entire civilization could choose to adopt a flawed view
renders science meaningless as all correspondence between dynamical
cause and terrestrial effects are severed.To restructure astronomy
requires not only a change in science,it is a change in society itself
and that is how enormous this issue is.Don't know how anyone can do
it,understand the reputations and monetary elements will continue to
uphold this catastrophe into the future but it cannot account for the
bulk of readers who must love astronomy,have a certain sense of
responsibility to the past and to the future while being able to adapt
and improvise when facts are not entirely clear or available.

On Saturday, 9 February 2013 09:03:39 UTC-5, Martin Nicholson wrote:
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.





ummm Oriel is philosophizing. generating ideas, spurring questions, so you can explore conclusions. why are you asking to create a bias?

On Feb 9, 9:37*pm, anonymous wrote:
On Saturday, 9 February 2013 09:03:39 UTC-5, Martin Nicholson *wrote:
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.

ummm Oriel is philosophizing. *generating ideas, spurring questions, so you can explore conclusions. *why are you asking to create a bias?

You give him too much credit.

The observation in the title of this thread is underused,for
instance,the line of sight observation where Mercury is far enough
from the glare of the central Sun to be seen due to its own orbital
motion is similar to the line of sight observation of Sirius which
emerges from the glare of the Sun as Sirius moves far enough to one
side due to the orbital motion of the Earth alone -

http://www.yorku.ca/ns1745b/fig2-sirius-helrise.gif

Our ancestors noticed that from any starting point,Sirius will appear
in 365 days after a period of absence and will do so,albeit with
diminishing clarity,for the next 3 cycles but on the 4th cycle it will
not be seen but takes an extra day.This is the bedrock of timekeeping
and a proper use of stellar references so that scientists never lose
sight again of that graceful proportion between the number of
rotations and the number of annual circuits which keeps days fixed to
the orbital points without drifting.

"on account of the precession of the rising of Sirius by one day in
the course of 4 years.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360
days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this
day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year"
Canopus decree,Egypt

The question this guy asked is loaded with calendar based Ra/Dec
terms ,something which can be dealt with separately and not as a toxic
instrument as it now stands but as a normal astronomical tool with
limitations that do not hijack astronomical principles for mechanical
modeling.

I firmly believe that any restructuring involves a larger change in
society,a long overdue adjustment by demonstrating that there is a
bottom to all this as opposed to the situation faced by previous
generations which tried to gloss over awkward and contrived
explanations centering around celestial references and the
cycles.Everything is on the table,that is why it should be thrilling
and that is where people should really look.

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?