#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
Observers in the Northern hemisphere looking towards the Equator and watching the daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon will see the familiar arc in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion while watching the seasonal variations in that arc -
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...-sun-sm.gif744 Observers in the Southern hemisphere looking towards the Equator will see the exact same arc daily with the seasonal variations but in the opposite direction to the Southern circumpolar motion of those stars. When I find myself explaining the apparent motion of the Sun and its familiar daily arc and seasonal variations and there are still people believe the Sun moves in an unnatural arc with circumpolar motion then perhaps there is no longer an advantage to post here as somebody might assume there was a discussion between men. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:32:14 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
Observers in the Northern hemisphere looking towards the Equator and watching the daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon will see the familiar arc in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion while watching the seasonal variations in that arc - http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...-sun-sm.gif744 Your link does not work, but even you are not so stupid that you can't see with your own eyes that both the Sun and the moon and the stars ALL rise in the east and set in the west, all day, every day; even planets in retrograde rise in the east and set in the west. Even though circumpolar objects don't actually rise or set (being, well, circumpolar), they still appear to rotate around the pole in the same direction as everything else, that is, east-to-west, even during inferior culmination... Think a little more before you speak. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
"palsing" wrote in message ... On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:32:14 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote: Observers in the Northern hemisphere looking towards the Equator and watching the daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon will see the familiar arc in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion while watching the seasonal variations in that arc - http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...-sun-sm.gif744 Your link does not work, but even you are not so stupid that you can't see with your own eyes that both the Sun and the moon and the stars ALL rise in the east and set in the west, all day, every day; even planets in retrograde rise in the east and set in the west. Even though circumpolar objects don't actually rise or set (being, well, circumpolar), they still appear to rotate around the pole in the same direction as everything else, that is, east-to-west, even during inferior culmination... Think a little more before you speak. ================================================= Ahem... What Kelleher is trying to say is either 1) it takes longer for the Sun to cross the arc than it does the stars (solar v sidereal) and even longer than that for the Moon which is moving West to East, so the Sun and Moon move in the opposite direction RELATIVELY to the (circumpolar) stars, or 2) Facing South the Sun moves left to right, but facing North it moves right to left. -- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
There is a wonderful astronomical symphony attached to the daily arcs of the Sun as our location arcs upwards from sunrise and reaches noon and then arcs downward hence we see this effect of a round an rotating Earth daily. The seasonal variations in that arc are due to an additional surface rotation to the central Sun which changes the length of time the Sun arcs from horizon to horizon and more interestingly the variations in height as a consequence of the orbital component of surface rotation. It is,of course, a new area of astronomy to visit with visual narratives even with a cult out there who insist in bypassing the daily arcs of the Sun by being fixated on circumpolar motion of the distant stars.
There is no further need to revisit the hideous idea of the Sun following a circumpolar arc even if it is proposed as 'fact' to a society that has yet to engage with genuine astronomy through contemporary tools which include magnification but are not solely reliant on that facet of astronomy. There is a wonderful sense of freedom for those who are not disposed to distorting observations to suit a celestial sphere agenda whether they call it universal gravity,relativity or some other variation on those hapless themes. There is,however,a second chance for those who straighten out all the references which lead to explanations of cause and effect,solar system structure and so on in an atmosphere of cooperation and genuine healthy competition. This is all good and a sign that the stagnation which caused the life to go out of astronomy is now setting the groundwork for a return to a vibrant and productive state. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 02:25:17 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:
There is a wonderful astronomical symphony attached to the daily arcs of the Sun as our location arcs upwards from sunrise and reaches noon and then arcs downward hence we see this effect of a round an rotating Earth daily. The seasonal variations in that arc are due to an additional surface rotation to the central Sun which changes the length of time the Sun arcs from horizon to horizon and more interestingly the variations in height as a consequence of the orbital component of surface rotation. It is,of course, a new area of astronomy to visit with visual narratives even with a cult out there who insist in bypassing the daily arcs of the Sun by being fixated on circumpolar motion of the distant stars. There is no further need to revisit the hideous idea of the Sun following a circumpolar arc even if it is proposed as 'fact' to a society that has yet to engage with genuine astronomy through contemporary tools which include magnification but are not solely reliant on that facet of astronomy. There is a wonderful sense of freedom for those who are not disposed to distorting observations to suit a celestial sphere agenda whether they call it universal gravity,relativity or some other variation on those hapless themes. There is,however,a second chance for those who straighten out all the references which lead to explanations of cause and effect,solar system structure and so on in an atmosphere of cooperation and genuine healthy competition. This is all good and a sign that the stagnation which caused the life to go out of astronomy is now setting the groundwork for a return to a vibrant and productive state. .. How it is that anyone (astronomer - by any definition, or any layperson) can logically assert that the Sun's apparent motion (on short time scales): is circumpolar; and say it with a clear conscience, is something you'll either figure out for yourself - or you won't. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:30:22 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
The daily arc of the Sun from East to West is in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion I'm sorry to break this to you, but the stars also rise in the East. John Savard |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 1:34:57 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:
My eyeball has an aperture of 1-2 mm with a zero budget. Explain why 8 inches of telescope aperture is crucial, given that the Moon subtends an arc of 1/2 a degree and is 238,000 miles away. Because I was talking about looking at Mars, and seeing it as big as the Moon is with the naked eye. That's what the post to which I was replying to was talking about: (begin quote) At a relatively small magnification MARS WILL LOOK AS LARGE AS THE FULL MOON TO THE NAKED EYE (end quote) John Savard |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:27:29 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 02:25:17 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote: There is a wonderful astronomical symphony attached to the daily arcs of the Sun as our location arcs upwards from sunrise and reaches noon and then arcs downward hence we see this effect of a round an rotating Earth daily. The seasonal variations in that arc are due to an additional surface rotation to the central Sun which changes the length of time the Sun arcs from horizon to horizon and more interestingly the variations in height as a consequence of the orbital component of surface rotation. It is,of course, a new area of astronomy to visit with visual narratives even with a cult out there who insist in bypassing the daily arcs of the Sun by being fixated on circumpolar motion of the distant stars. There is no further need to revisit the hideous idea of the Sun following a circumpolar arc even if it is proposed as 'fact' to a society that has yet to engage with genuine astronomy through contemporary tools which include magnification but are not solely reliant on that facet of astronomy. There is a wonderful sense of freedom for those who are not disposed to distorting observations to suit a celestial sphere agenda whether they call it universal gravity,relativity or some other variation on those hapless themes. There is,however,a second chance for those who straighten out all the references which lead to explanations of cause and effect,solar system structure and so on in an atmosphere of cooperation and genuine healthy competition. This is all good and a sign that the stagnation which caused the life to go out of astronomy is now setting the groundwork for a return to a vibrant and productive state. . How it is that anyone (astronomer - by any definition, or any layperson) can logically assert that the Sun's apparent motion (on short time scales): is circumpolar; and say it with a clear conscience, is something you'll either figure out for yourself - or you won't. The daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon does not follow a circumpolar arc insofar as the daily arc is in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion looking South towards the Equator and variations in that arc from greater to smaller as the Earth moves from its June to December orbital position is matched in the Southern hemisphere by an opposite apparent movement in the same arc from smaller to greater and in the opposite arc to the Southern circumpolar stars. It is not a clear conscience as that assumes intelligence of some standard, what you are prepared to believes defies description as this is the apparent daily motion of the Sun and its seasonal variations that is being challenged because the Sun follows no circumpolar arc from horizon to horizon - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm The only acceptable variations in the arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon are the normal seasonal arcs with greater arcs away from the Equator as the season progresses towards hemispherical summer - http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...ing-sun-sm.gif With 3 centuries of empirical voodoo creating an interpretative atrophy in our race it is no wonder that not even the apparent motion of the Sun survives as an observation. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
"Quadibloc" wrote in message ... On Sunday, August 10, 2014 1:34:57 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote: My eyeball has an aperture of 1-2 mm with a zero budget. Explain why 8 inches of telescope aperture is crucial, given that the Moon subtends an arc of 1/2 a degree and is 238,000 miles away. Because I was talking about looking at Mars, and seeing it as big as the Moon is with the naked eye. That's what the post to which I was replying to was talking about: (begin quote) At a relatively small magnification MARS WILL LOOK AS LARGE AS THE FULL MOON TO THE NAKED EYE (end quote) John Savard ================================================== ============== Are you claiming the Moon is 8 inches in diameter to the naked eye? Seems to me a nickel at arms length will completely occult it, so I'm wondering why the 'scope needs an aperture of 8 inches. Do you snip your own words because you are embarrassed by them? begin quote \ Well, _that's_ not the Moon hoax; it doesn't violate the laws of physics for Mars to look as big as the full moon does, from Earth... if you magnify Mars, but not the Moon. However, that is a value of "relatively small" that requires at least a telescope with 8 inches of aperture. So amateur astronomers with modest budgets may take issue with that. \end quote Which hat did you pluck 8 inches from? -- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
oriel36 wrote:
On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:27:29 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 02:25:17 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote: There is a wonderful astronomical symphony attached to the daily arcs of the Sun as our location arcs upwards from sunrise and reaches noon and then arcs downward hence we see this effect of a round an rotating Earth daily. The seasonal variations in that arc are due to an additional surface rotation to the central Sun which changes the length of time the Sun arcs from horizon to horizon and more interestingly the variations in height as a consequence of the orbital component of surface rotation. It is,of course, a new area of astronomy to visit with visual narratives even with a cult out there who insist in bypassing the daily arcs of the Sun by being fixated on circumpolar motion of the distant stars. There is no further need to revisit the hideous idea of the Sun following a circumpolar arc even if it is proposed as 'fact' to a society that has yet to engage with genuine astronomy through contemporary tools which include magnification but are not solely reliant on that facet of astronomy. There is a wonderful sense of freedom for those who are not disposed to distorting observations to suit a celestial sphere agenda whether they call it universal gravity,relativity or some other variation on those hapless themes. There is,however,a second chance for those who straighten out all the references which lead to explanations of cause and effect,solar system structure and so on in an atmosphere of cooperation and genuine healthy competition. This is all good and a sign that the stagnation which caused the life to go out of astronomy is now setting the groundwork for a return to a vibrant and productive state. . How it is that anyone (astronomer - by any definition, or any layperson) can logically assert that the Sun's apparent motion (on short time scales): is circumpolar; and say it with a clear conscience, is something you'll either figure out for yourself - or you won't. The daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon does not follow a circumpolar arc insofar as the daily arc is in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion looking South towards the Equator and variations in that arc from greater to smaller as the Earth moves from its June to December orbital position is matched in the Southern hemisphere by an opposite apparent movement in the same arc from smaller to greater and in the opposite arc to the Southern circumpolar stars. It is not a clear conscience as that assumes intelligence of some standard, what you are prepared to believes defies description as this is the apparent daily motion of the Sun and its seasonal variations that is being challenged because the Sun follows no circumpolar arc from horizon to horizon - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm The only acceptable variations in the arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon are the normal seasonal arcs with greater arcs away from the Equator as the season progresses towards hemispherical summer - http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...ing-sun-sm.gif With 3 centuries of empirical voodoo creating an interpretative atrophy in our race it is no wonder that not even the apparent motion of the Sun survives as an observation. You can decide whether or not this is acceptable: https://picasaweb.google.com/1122531... noredirect=1 This link will take you to a slideshow of the views of the sun at Hammerfest, just inside the arctic circle, at midsummer. You can easily see how the sun, planets and stars all follow the same path around the pole. As the sun reaches the edge of the slide the viewpoint changes. For the southern views the projection changes to allow views of the sun and Polaris. This is my first try at such a slideshow. You may have to copy and paste the link to make it work. I chose Hammerfest rather than the North Pole because you can go there yourself that this simulation is correct. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mars takes centre stage in IMAX spectacular | The Register | Nick | UK Astronomy | 0 | January 30th 06 01:11 PM |
MARS SPECTACULAR COMI | JOHN PAZMINO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 28th 05 07:35 AM |
MARS SPECTACULAR COMING--Huh? | W. Watson | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | June 20th 05 02:43 AM |
Europe's eye on Mars: first spectacular results from Mars Express(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 19th 04 07:58 PM |
Mars spectacular tonight in Jersey! | SirWmOsler | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | September 7th 03 12:51 PM |