A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Illusory loops vs actual loops.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 16th 18, 08:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

I have earned the entitlement more than any astronomer to be left to present these issues without the usual nonsense from those who can't adjust to perceptions outside celestial sphere observations and conclusions.

To marry the phases with the incremental changes in position of the stars each twilight and dawn (due to the orbital motion of the Earth) would be such a difficult astro-photography feat notwithstanding that contemporaries won't even recognize the transition of stars ,close to the orbital plane, from an evening to a morning appearance over a few months.

Very hard to find a young head on old shoulders much less an old head on young shoulders however the principles which distinguish the faster and slower moving planets are outlined enough to build a proper picture. My reward is to get a headache from those who can't adjust for whatever reasons.



  #12  
Old May 18th 18, 06:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

As the distance between the observer and the horizon acts as a giant sunshade to the stationary Sun, Venus is to the left of the central and stationary Sun as a twilight appearance at the moment which Mercury is to the right and a morning appearance

http://www.theplanetstoday.com/

Getting past the outdated terminology or at least for those who live in the space age, a more developed adult view relates our home planet to the other planets rather than the observer to the sky and horizon.

  #13  
Old May 18th 18, 06:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

I don't mind that people actually try to explain the direct/retrograde motions of the faster moving Venus and Mercury in the absence of any academic answer to the questions -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtV0PV9MF88

The significant difference between the slower moving planets as seen from a moving Earth and the faster Mercury and Venus is that the stars themselves change their position incrementally to a central and stationary Sun thereby easing the difficulties associated with the actual loops of the faster moving Mercury but especially Venus -

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

The girl in the first video is right when it comes to typing in 'mercury retrograde' in a google search and encountering the harmless astrological websites en masse but neither is there a single instructional video out there reflecting the accurate direct/retrogrades of the planets closest to the Sun that were first explained here.



  #14  
Old May 18th 18, 07:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 10:45:04 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

"...neither is there a single instructional video out there reflecting the accurate direct/retrogrades of the planets closest to the Sun...


Sure there is, here...

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

.... just look at little yellow Mercury as he loops his way along with respect to the background stars... just like all the other planets do. If you weren't told which colors represented which planets you might be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the superior planets and the inferior planets!
  #15  
Old May 18th 18, 08:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 7:32:50 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

Sure there is, here...

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

... just look at little yellow Mercury as he loops his way along with respect to the background stars... just like all the other planets do. If you weren't told which colors represented which planets you might be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the superior planets and the inferior planets!


There is no need to jump in any more as even though the attempt by those people to explain Mercury's direct/retrogrades was admirable, it is of course wrong and lacking the necessary principles of phases and the incremental change in the position of the background stars (referenced to the central Sun) as proof of a moving Earth.

The shortcut of using phases to create the actual loop of Venus is perfectly acceptable -

http://www.insideastronomy.com/uploa...0_7_128459.jpg

Everything else is a bonus and specifically the relationship between the Earth's orbital motion and the slow incremental changes in the position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane however the idea is that no illusory loops exist when viewing Venus or Mercury as they run their orbital circuits.

It is not for everyone Paul as you are occupied with a calendar based reference system which is even different from the one the first Sun centered astronomers used where even the Sun moves North and South against the background stars. This, of course, distracts from the objective of separating illusory loops of the slower moving planets from the actual loops of the faster moving planets seen from Earth.

I thought the time lapse of Jupiter's satellites would win the day, even for you, but obviously the world of magnification hobbyists doesn't allow practitioners to rise to a different level of understanding.
  #16  
Old May 19th 18, 06:47 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Friday, 18 May 2018 20:32:50 UTC+2, palsing wrote:

... just look at little yellow Mercury as he loops his way along with respect to the background stars... just like all the other planets do. If you weren't told which colors represented which planets you might be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the superior planets and the inferior planets!


The allusion to illusion is all we need to know about the OP's motives.
Can we stop alluding to "inferior" planets before I get a "complex."
Hierarchical "sorting" is responsible for most human problems.
  #17  
Old May 19th 18, 09:47 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 11:47:11 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Can we stop alluding to "inferior" planets before I get a "complex."


That is the correct term, although Oriel prefers to refer to planets closer to the
Sun than Earth as "inner" planets - it has been noted that this term usually
refers to planets inside the asteroid belt instead.

John Savard
  #18  
Old May 19th 18, 03:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
the attempt by those people to explain Mercury's direct/retrogrades was admirable, it is of course wrong


Pick a date and tell us which planet there is wrong, and where in the sky it really is on that date.
  #19  
Old May 19th 18, 03:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 8:34:17 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:


the attempt by those people to explain Mercury's direct/retrogrades was
admirable, it is of course wrong


Pick a date and tell us which planet there is wrong, and where in the sky it
really is on that date.


Maybe it was the _explanation_ that was wrong, not the graphic. I didn't see
anything wrong there, but it is, "of course", not in harmony with Oriel's
conceptualization of the way planets rotate on their axes, and so he may also
have a unique notion of orbital motions as well that conventional astronomers
are known not to embrace.

Glancing at the page, the text seems to be correct; it isn't oversimplified, but I'm afraid that many people's reactions will be expressed by the abbreviation "tl;dr".

John Savard
  #20  
Old May 19th 18, 04:33 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default Illusory loops vs actual loops.

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:51:12 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

Glancing at the page, the text seems to be correct;


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

It is not the text we are interested in, it is the little animated graphic titled Dance of the Planets- Gerald loves those, they don't require him to do sums or look at the sky.

Unfortunately for Gerald, it shows illusory loops in the paths of Venus and Mercury, showing that this thread is just him imagining he understands things again.
 




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
The five loops of Venus? W. eWatson[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 5 May 30th 12 08:34 PM
Other audio loops Jim Space Shuttle 1 December 18th 06 05:14 PM
Heating Coronal Loops Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 0 September 2nd 05 05:17 PM
Air to ground loops David Findlay Space Shuttle 0 July 29th 05 12:37 AM
Measuring "loops" in the Sun (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 November 14th 03 09:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.