Selene and Regulus During the Day

Dear Friends,

It is often assumed that stars are only visible during the evening and well after the sun has already set. This is really a myth since many stars and a good number of planets are also visible during the day. Since the eye focuses at a distance of 400 feet when focusing for "infinity", such observations become a challenge. However, when the moon is in the immediate vicinity of our object of interest so that our eye can focus properly for infinity (with the observer looking at the moon), such observations become much easier.

I am happy to present you with an image taken a few hours ago involving the first quarter moon and Regulus. The latter is one of the brightest stars in the sky (mag @ 1.40) and the primary star of the constellation of Leo. Lying at a distance of 77.5 light-years away, it is also one of the closest stars to Sol. It is really a triple-star system comprised of Regulus A (mag 1.40) and two other fainter members (mag 8.0 and 13.0) which are a binary system of their own.

For those interested, please see http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Occult-2007-05-23.htm .

Clear skies!

Anthony.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:56:50 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Dear Friends,

It is often assumed that stars are only visible during the evening and well after the sun has already set. This is really a myth since many stars and a good number of planets are also visible during the day. Since the eye focuses at a distance of 400 feet when focusing for "infinity", such observations become a challenge. However, when the moon is in the immediate vicinity of our object of interest so that our eye can focus properly for infinity (with the observer looking at the moon), such observations become much easier.

I am happy to present you with an image taken a few hours ago involving the first quarter moon and Regulus. The latter is one of the brightest stars in the sky (mag @ 1.40) and the primary star of the constellation of Leo. Lying at a distance of 77.5 light-years away, it is also one of the closest stars to Sol. It is really a triple-star system comprised of Regulus A (mag 1.40) and two other fainter members (mag 8.0 and 13.0) which are a binary system of their own.

For those interested, please see http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Occult-2007-05-23.htm .

Clear skies!

Anthony.

Hi Anthony,

Great picture. It was an interesting event wasn't it. It was my first
daylight star and I was quite taken aback by how easy it was to see it
visually.

Here are a couple of my shots...

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...Red_titled.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/_Red16.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...itled+Dslr.jpg

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:56:50 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:


Dear Friends,

It is often assumed that stars are only visible during the evening and well after the sun has already set. This is really a myth since many stars and a good number of planets are also visible during the day. Since the eye focuses at a distance of 400 feet when focusing for "infinity", such observations become a challenge. However, when the moon is in the immediate vicinity of our object of interest so that our eye can focus properly for infinity (with the observer looking at the moon), such observations become much easier.

I am happy to present you with an image taken a few hours ago involving the first quarter moon and Regulus. The latter is one of the brightest stars in the sky (mag @ 1.40) and the primary star of the constellation of Leo. Lying at a distance of 77.5 light-years away, it is also one of the closest stars to Sol. It is really a triple-star system comprised of Regulus A (mag 1.40) and two other fainter members (mag 8.0 and 13.0) which are a binary system of their own.

For those interested, please see http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Occult-2007-05-23.htm .

Clear skies!

Anthony.


Hi Anthony,

Hi Pete,


Great picture. It was an interesting event wasn't it. It was my first
daylight star and I was quite taken aback by how easy it was to see it
visually.

Hehehehe ... great minds think alike!

Regulus was even visible in my finderscope piggy-backed on top of the AP160.


Here are a couple of my shots...

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...Red_titled.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/_Red16.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...itled+Dslr.jpg


Nice work. We were a few minutes within each other .... and the parallax
effect (oriel????) is interesting.

Anthony.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:24:05 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

It is often assumed that stars are only visible during the evening and well after the sun has already set. This is really a myth since many stars and a good number of planets are also visible during the day. Since the eye focuses at a distance of 400 feet when focusing for "infinity", such observations become a challenge. However, when the moon is in the immediate vicinity of our object of interest so that our eye can focus properly for infinity (with the observer looking at the moon), such observations become much easier.

I am happy to present you with an image taken a few hours ago involving the first quarter moon and Regulus. The latter is one of the brightest stars in the sky (mag @ 1.40) and the primary star of the constellation of Leo. Lying at a distance of 77.5 light-years away, it is also one of the closest stars to Sol. It is really a triple-star system comprised of Regulus A (mag 1.40) and two other fainter members (mag 8.0 and 13.0) which are a binary system of their own.

For those interested, please see http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Occult-2007-05-23.htm .


Here are a couple of my shots...

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...Red_titled.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/_Red16.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...itled+Dslr.jpg


Nice work. We were a few minutes within each other .... and the parallax
effect (oriel????) is interesting.

Anthony.

Indeed - perhaps we should have liased ;-)

I've put my results up on a wep page which is available he
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...d_Regulus.html

I've got more stuff to add to it but no time to process it at the
moment!
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

On May 23, 7:56 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
Dear Friends,

It is often assumed that stars are only visible during the evening and well after the sun has already set. This is really a myth ...


The myth of the setting Sun indeed.Maybe you can instruct Pete here
about axial rotation and shadows at night and Pete can instruct you
about the fact that the Earth rotates instead of the 'sun setting'.





since many stars and a good number of planets are also visible during
the day. Since the eye focuses at a distance of 400 feet when focusing
for "infinity", such observations become a challenge. However, when
the moon is in the immediate vicinity of our object of interest so
that our eye can focus properly for infinity (with the observer
looking at the moon), such observations become much easier.

I am happy to present you with an image taken a few hours ago involving the first quarter moon and Regulus. The latter is one of the brightest stars in the sky (mag @ 1.40) and the primary star of the constellation of Leo.

Unapologetic astrologers with magnification devices and loving it !.




Lying at a distance of 77.5 light-years away, it is also one of the
closest stars to Sol. It is really a triple-star system comprised of
Regulus A (mag 1.40) and two other fainter members (mag 8.0 and 13.0)
which are a binary system of their own.

For those interested, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Occult-2007-05-23.htm.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

Good to see you back in your astrological box and happy to show photos
where no appreciation of scale or context is required.

Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:24:05 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:


It is often assumed that stars are only visible during the evening and well after the sun has already set. This is really a myth since many stars and a good number of planets are also visible during the day. Since the eye focuses at a distance of 400 feet when focusing for "infinity", such observations become a challenge. However, when the moon is in the immediate vicinity of our object of interest so that our eye can focus properly for infinity (with the observer looking at the moon), such observations become much easier.

I am happy to present you with an image taken a few hours ago involving the first quarter moon and Regulus. The latter is one of the brightest stars in the sky (mag @ 1.40) and the primary star of the constellation of Leo. Lying at a distance of 77.5 light-years away, it is also one of the closest stars to Sol. It is really a triple-star system comprised of Regulus A (mag 1.40) and two other fainter members (mag 8.0 and 13.0) which are a binary system of their own.

For those interested, please see http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Occult-2007-05-23.htm .


Here are a couple of my shots...

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...Red_titled.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/_Red16.jpg

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...itled+Dslr.jpg


Nice work. We were a few minutes within each other .... and the parallax
effect (oriel????) is interesting.

Anthony.


Indeed - perhaps we should have liased ;-)

I have 51 images taken between 18:50 and 19:50 UT+3 ... and during
regular intervals. It may not be too late.


I've put my results up on a wep page which is available he
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occulta...d_Regulus.html

Beautiful presentation as always!


I've got more stuff to add to it but no time to process it at the
moment!

Please keep us informed.

Also, please remember to have oriel proof-read everything. LOL!

Anthony.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:17:53 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Also, please remember to have oriel proof-read everything. LOL!

Perhaps he's from outside the Matrix? "Do you believe that's air
you're breathing?" ;-)

"Do you still believe that there is motion in the sky foolish
astrologer? Once there is geocentric harmony in the heliosphere my
work here will not even have started to scratch the head of your
ignorance!"

Hey - I'm pretty good aren't I? Perhaps it's me writing the rubbish?
If it is, I'll try and stop myself from now on foolish analemic
astrologer that I am. ;-)
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

In article , Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:17:53 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Also, please remember to have oriel proof-read everything. LOL!

Perhaps he's from outside the Matrix? "Do you believe that's air
you're breathing?" ;-)

"Do you still believe that there is motion in the sky foolish
astrologer? Once there is geocentric harmony in the heliosphere my
work here will not even have started to scratch the head of your
ignorance!"

Ok, that was scary. Please don't do that again :-)

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk

My lucky star is probably Eta Carinae.

On May 24, 1:29 pm, Pete Lawrence
wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:17:53 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis

wrote:
Also, please remember to have oriel proof-read everything. LOL!

Perhaps he's from outside the Matrix? "Do you believe that's air
you're breathing?" ;-)

"Do you still believe that there is motion in the sky foolish
astrologer? Once there is geocentric harmony in the heliosphere my
work here will not even have started to scratch the head of your
ignorance!"

Hey - I'm pretty good aren't I? Perhaps it's me writing the rubbish?
If it is, I'll try and stop myself from now on foolish analemic
astrologer that I am. ;-)
--
Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk

You are astrologers by virtue of linking the Earth's rotation directly
to constellational geometry and all wrapped up in a value of 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds -

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

One of the most practical adaptions of heliocentric reasoning is the
application of the Equation of Time principles of the 24 hour day and
clocks to the determination of terrestrial longitudes based on a 24
hour/360 degree equivalency.There is no other value,there is no
external reference required,there is just the appreciation that the
daily cycle is unequal and a location does not rotate to noon in 24
hours.


" 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, and here you have a
Table, that shows it" Huygens

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

The inability to grasp the basic astronomical principle which creates
the 24 hour day has to be the lowest intellectual point possible,not
just for people interested in astronomy but in just about every area
of existence..Not you or Anthony but only the most indifferent person
can acknowledge that an enormous error occured for an entire
generation of people to believe that the Earth 360 degree cycle takes
23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds. -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

I cannot explain why people are doing this,I simply cannot account for
what is driving this astrological insanity even when the astrological
framework can be explained away as nothing more than an observational
convenience based on the calendar system.It is no small thing to wreck
pre-Copernican and Western astronomical achievements for an exercise
in magnification but that is what your hobby amounts to.There is
nothing to support your concepts and your methods,not the images and
certainly not the original texts of Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo,Huygens
and others.

Where,for the love of God,is there responsibility in this matter and
especially Christians for your astrological concepts can only show an
anti-Christian side.