Tripod & Mount Needed

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 3:54:49 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

You are amazing people...

It is about time that you finally realized this... what took you so long?

...It is an illness of course...

.... and we are all sorry you are still suffering from it...

You are the rest of the celestial sphere dummies have spent decades managing to ignore what is effectively the easiest possible interpretation in astronomy for nothing other than the clockwork solar system of the late 17th century guys.

Nothing could be easier than using 2 sticks and a stopwatch to prove to yourself that any star of your choosing (Sirius is very handy this time of year) will return in 23 56 04 EVERY NIGHT, NIGHT AFTER NIGHT!!!

What, oh what, can it possibly mean? When will we understand it all?

You remain completely unteachable, so sad...

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 2:04:12 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 3:54:49 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

You are amazing people...

It is about time that you finally realized this... what took you so long?

...It is an illness of course...

... and we are all sorry you are still suffering from it...

You are the rest of the celestial sphere dummies have spent decades managing to ignore what is effectively the easiest possible interpretation in astronomy for nothing other than the clockwork solar system of the late 17th century guys.

Nothing could be easier than using 2 sticks and a stopwatch to prove to yourself that any star of your choosing (Sirius is very handy this time of year) will return in 23 56 04 EVERY NIGHT, NIGHT AFTER NIGHT!!!

What, oh what, can it possibly mean? When will we understand it all?


The 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system both emerge from the event that happens within the next few weeks where the relationship between days and rotations are correlated to the orbital circuits of the Earth. That framework represents the proportions of rotations of rotations per orbital circuit as a parent observation where the 1461 rotation per 4 orbital circuits is split in two different ways -

1 -The raw observation which affirms that 1461 rotations/4 annual circuits reduces to 365 1/4 rotations to one circuit

2- The convenience of the calendar format which formats the 1461 rotations/4 annual circuits into 3 years of 365 days/rotations and one year of 366 days/rotations.

It is not that this proportion is inviolate, an entire forum for the last two decades have managed to completely ignore the most basic correlation that makes us human - the return of the Sun at dawn followed by the return f the stars after twilight is due to a single rotation of the Earth

If there was one other intelligent person able to understand the averaging process which creates the 24 hour day and from there how it substitutes for constant rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and a single 360 degree rotation in 24 hours via the Lat/Long system.

I have no time for old men with stock phrases who can't think however not finding anyone getting behind the development of timekeeping in tandem with planetary dynamics is incredibly painful.

On 15/02/2016 23:08, Mike Collins wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:06:19 -0500, wrote:

Well, I'm thinking equitorial because I'd want to stay with the same
object while others take looks and I shift eyepieces, etc. Might want
a drive in the equitorial axis ...

You only need equatorial if you need to maintain the rotational
orientation in the eyepiece, as when you image. For visual use,
orientation isn't important, nor is the fact that the view slowly
rotates over time. What you want is _tracking_, and modern altaz
mounts provide excellent tracking. So with an iOptron mount like the
one I suggested, the scope will track the target all night long. It
will initially point the scope to your desired target, either by
coordinates or some catalog ID in its database, and keep it there as
long as you want.


It seems fairly trivial to use software to rotate the image so why it an
altaz for imaging.

ISTR Meade did offer a field rotator for the LX200 series. But it was so
(un)popular compared to using a wedge that it got discontinued.

http://www.meade.com/meade-1220-field-de-rotator.html

Certainly, most large professional scopes are altaz with rotators. And
while the motion control is simple in principle, in practice it would
add a lot of cost to a small mount. An equatorial mount only requires
accurate, low-noise tracking on a single axis. The other axis can be
much simpler mechanically, as it is only tweaked occasionally in
response to a guider signal.

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).

Professional altaz scopes run the observing program through software to
make sure that the maximum slew rate of the drives will not be exceeded
for objects that get too close to the zenith. It is a fine line since
the clearest sky is straight up and it is the one place you cannot go.

They also check that the umbical control cables will not get wrapped
round the mount or any other potential nasties in the simulation.

I'm not suggesting physical rotation of the eyepiece. It would be easy for
stacking software to rotate the image eliminating the need for physical
rotation. I don't know if this is available but it shouldn't be too
difficult to write compared to the rest of the stacking code.

If you are only stacking short exposures then it is easy but it you want
to image faint objects with long time exposures then having the field of
view rotating leads to star trails away from the field centre.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:47:20 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/02/2016 23:08, Mike Collins wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:06:19 -0500, wrote:

Well, I'm thinking equitorial because I'd want to stay with the same
object while others take looks and I shift eyepieces, etc. Might want
a drive in the equitorial axis ...

You only need equatorial if you need to maintain the rotational
orientation in the eyepiece, as when you image. For visual use,
orientation isn't important, nor is the fact that the view slowly
rotates over time. What you want is _tracking_, and modern altaz
mounts provide excellent tracking. So with an iOptron mount like the
one I suggested, the scope will track the target all night long. It
will initially point the scope to your desired target, either by
coordinates or some catalog ID in its database, and keep it there as
long as you want.


It seems fairly trivial to use software to rotate the image so why it an
altaz for imaging.

ISTR Meade did offer a field rotator for the LX200 series. But it was so
(un)popular compared to using a wedge that it got discontinued.

http://www.meade.com/meade-1220-field-de-rotator.html

Certainly, most large professional scopes are altaz with rotators. And
while the motion control is simple in principle, in practice it would
add a lot of cost to a small mount. An equatorial mount only requires
accurate, low-noise tracking on a single axis. The other axis can be
much simpler mechanically, as it is only tweaked occasionally in
response to a guider signal.

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).


Follow the logic son.

By sidereal rate you mean the homocentric observation coincident with star trails that a star will return to the same position in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds as determined within the average 24 hour day as an extension of the 365/ 366 day calendar framework. This is a considerable distance from the original proposal of Flamsteed who lunged at a conclusion that rotational rates are constant via stellar circumpolar motion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed


The development of timekeeping is absolutely contingent on the proportion of days to years which in turn reflect a close proximity of rotations to orbital circuits. It takes 4 annual circuits to nail down that proportion to a reasonable value of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

Because of the existence of a fictional ' solar rate vs sidereal rate' dumped on rotation it becomes impossible to ascertain the dual surface rotations from separate causes, the daily rotational cycle and the experience of the day/night cycle, the surface rotation to the central Sun as a component of the Earth's orbital motion and the accounting for the polar day/night cycle.

It is injurious to everyone alive to propose two rotational values for the same rotation hence the 'sidereal rate' is bogus and unhelpful for anything involving the motions of the planet. If you can't apply basic logic then take up something else like gardening or stamp collecting.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:46:13 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).

The drive can't track through the pole- doing so requires running the
motor at an infinite speed. A second problem is that no mount is
perfect; there will always be some cone error. That means that an
equatorial mount will not be able to point exactly at the pole... but
that's rarely a problem.

Professional altaz scopes run the observing program through software to
make sure that the maximum slew rate of the drives will not be exceeded
for objects that get too close to the zenith. It is a fine line since
the clearest sky is straight up and it is the one place you cannot go.

Exactly.

On 17/02/2016 15:14, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:46:13 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).

The drive can't track through the pole- doing so requires running the
motor at an infinite speed.

Rubbish. There is nothing special about the pole for an equatorial mount
provided that the mount is accurately aligned with it.

The problem only arises when an altaz mount goes through or too close to
the zenith and the azimuth maximum slew rate is exceeded.

A second problem is that no mount is
perfect; there will always be some cone error. That means that an
equatorial mount will not be able to point exactly at the pole... but
that's rarely a problem.

Professional altaz scopes run the observing program through software to
make sure that the maximum slew rate of the drives will not be exceeded
for objects that get too close to the zenith. It is a fine line since
the clearest sky is straight up and it is the one place you cannot go.

Exactly.



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:51:13 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

The drive can't track through the pole- doing so requires running the
motor at an infinite speed.

Rubbish. There is nothing special about the pole for an equatorial mount
provided that the mount is accurately aligned with it.

Of course there is. The singularity at the pole of an equatorial mount
is identical to the one at the zenith of an altaz mount.

I believe you are misunderstanding the problem I am pointing out. It
isn't a problem with sidereal tracking near the pole, it's a problem
with non-sidereal tracking near the pole. The problem occurs when you
try to track _through_ the pole, not around it. As I noted, this is
usually not a problem in practice- quite unlike the issue with an
altaz mount at the zenith, where nearly all of the objects you will be
tracking go _through_ the zenith.

oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:47:20 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/02/2016 23:08, Mike Collins wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:06:19 -0500, wrote:

Well, I'm thinking equitorial because I'd want to stay with the same
object while others take looks and I shift eyepieces, etc. Might want
a drive in the equitorial axis ...

You only need equatorial if you need to maintain the rotational
orientation in the eyepiece, as when you image. For visual use,
orientation isn't important, nor is the fact that the view slowly
rotates over time. What you want is _tracking_, and modern altaz
mounts provide excellent tracking. So with an iOptron mount like the
one I suggested, the scope will track the target all night long. It
will initially point the scope to your desired target, either by
coordinates or some catalog ID in its database, and keep it there as
long as you want.


It seems fairly trivial to use software to rotate the image so why it an
altaz for imaging.

ISTR Meade did offer a field rotator for the LX200 series. But it was so
(un)popular compared to using a wedge that it got discontinued.

http://www.meade.com/meade-1220-field-de-rotator.html

Certainly, most large professional scopes are altaz with rotators. And
while the motion control is simple in principle, in practice it would
add a lot of cost to a small mount. An equatorial mount only requires
accurate, low-noise tracking on a single axis. The other axis can be
much simpler mechanically, as it is only tweaked occasionally in
response to a guider signal.

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).


Follow the logic son.

By sidereal rate you mean the homocentric observation coincident with
star trails that a star will return to the same position in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds as determined within the average 24 hour day as an
extension of the 365/ 366 day calendar framework. This is a considerable
distance from the original proposal of Flamsteed who lunged at a
conclusion that rotational rates are constant via stellar circumpolar motion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed



Are you insane? It's exactly the same.


The development of timekeeping is absolutely contingent on the proportion
of days to years which in turn reflect a close proximity of rotations to
orbital circuits. It takes 4 annual circuits to nail down that proportion
to a reasonable value of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

No the rotation of the Earth is independent of the orbit. There is no
simple relationship. Your holy 1461 is wrong. That's why we have the
Gregorian calendar which is still only an approximation.

Because of the existence of a fictional ' solar rate vs sidereal rate'
dumped on rotation it becomes impossible to ascertain the dual surface
rotations from separate causes, the daily rotational cycle and the
experience of the day/night cycle, the surface rotation to the central
Sun as a component of the Earth's orbital motion and the accounting for
the polar day/night cycle.

It is injurious to everyone alive to propose two rotational values for
the same rotation hence the 'sidereal rate' is bogus and unhelpful for
anything involving the motions of the planet. If you can't apply basic
logic then take up something else like gardening or stamp collecting.

Please explain the nature of this injury.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:08:19 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:47:20 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/02/2016 23:08, Mike Collins wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:06:19 -0500, wrote:

Well, I'm thinking equitorial because I'd want to stay with the same
object while others take looks and I shift eyepieces, etc. Might want
a drive in the equitorial axis ...

You only need equatorial if you need to maintain the rotational
orientation in the eyepiece, as when you image. For visual use,
orientation isn't important, nor is the fact that the view slowly
rotates over time. What you want is _tracking_, and modern altaz
mounts provide excellent tracking. So with an iOptron mount like the
one I suggested, the scope will track the target all night long. It
will initially point the scope to your desired target, either by
coordinates or some catalog ID in its database, and keep it there as
long as you want.


It seems fairly trivial to use software to rotate the image so why it an
altaz for imaging.

ISTR Meade did offer a field rotator for the LX200 series. But it was so
(un)popular compared to using a wedge that it got discontinued.

http://www.meade.com/meade-1220-field-de-rotator.html

Certainly, most large professional scopes are altaz with rotators. And
while the motion control is simple in principle, in practice it would
add a lot of cost to a small mount. An equatorial mount only requires
accurate, low-noise tracking on a single axis. The other axis can be
much simpler mechanically, as it is only tweaked occasionally in
response to a guider signal.

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).


Follow the logic son.

By sidereal rate you mean the homocentric observation coincident with
star trails that a star will return to the same position in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds as determined within the average 24 hour day as an
extension of the 365/ 366 day calendar framework. This is a considerable
distance from the original proposal of Flamsteed who lunged at a
conclusion that rotational rates are constant via stellar circumpolar motion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed



Are you insane? It's exactly the same.


This shouldn't be happening in the 21st century as the parent reference for rotation is the central Sun while the orbital position is defined by the annual first appearance of a star -

".. on account of the procession 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 238 BC

The utter insanity belongs to you and the rest here and you all fight to disassociate experience of sunrise/sunset from a single rotation by assigning 1465 rotations for 1461 days -

"During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its own axis 366.26 times" Wikipedia





The development of timekeeping is absolutely contingent on the proportion
of days to years which in turn reflect a close proximity of rotations to
orbital circuits. It takes 4 annual circuits to nail down that proportion
to a reasonable value of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

No the rotation of the Earth is independent of the orbit. There is no
simple relationship. Your holy 1461 is wrong. That's why we have the
Gregorian calendar which is still only an approximation.


You people know nothing, not even the basic foundation of experience which assigns relevance to the appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance of the stars with each rotation and then extends it as a continuous stream of rotations bounded within four annual circuits of the Earth.

Clearly you all suffer from a disease as there is not 'holy' about 1461 rotations other than it emerges from the astronomical event where the annual return of the star Sirius doesn't happen after a continuous cycle of 365 days and rotations but skips an appearance after the 4th cycle. This wonderful,wonderful event defines the Earth's orbital position in space using daily rotations as a gauge.






Because of the existence of a fictional ' solar rate vs sidereal rate'
dumped on rotation it becomes impossible to ascertain the dual surface
rotations from separate causes, the daily rotational cycle and the
experience of the day/night cycle, the surface rotation to the central
Sun as a component of the Earth's orbital motion and the accounting for
the polar day/night cycle.

It is injurious to everyone alive to propose two rotational values for
the same rotation hence the 'sidereal rate' is bogus and unhelpful for
anything involving the motions of the planet. If you can't apply basic
logic then take up something else like gardening or stamp collecting.

Please explain the nature of this injury.

How a bunch of mindless thugs got hold of astronomy and can't handle the most basic of human experiences of the motions of the Earth is one thing, how it was done using human timekeeping yet nobody wants to know is something else.#

You all behave as if nothing is wrong and that is astonishing, not you and your rotting mind but rather people who should know better and realize it is creating a type of communal autism where people are disconnected from the experiences of the motions which make their own lives possible.

oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:08:19 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:47:20 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/02/2016 23:08, Mike Collins wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:06:19 -0500, wrote:

Well, I'm thinking equitorial because I'd want to stay with the same
object while others take looks and I shift eyepieces, etc. Might want
a drive in the equitorial axis ...

You only need equatorial if you need to maintain the rotational
orientation in the eyepiece, as when you image. For visual use,
orientation isn't important, nor is the fact that the view slowly
rotates over time. What you want is _tracking_, and modern altaz
mounts provide excellent tracking. So with an iOptron mount like the
one I suggested, the scope will track the target all night long. It
will initially point the scope to your desired target, either by
coordinates or some catalog ID in its database, and keep it there as
long as you want.


It seems fairly trivial to use software to rotate the image so why it an
altaz for imaging.

ISTR Meade did offer a field rotator for the LX200 series. But it was so
(un)popular compared to using a wedge that it got discontinued.

http://www.meade.com/meade-1220-field-de-rotator.html

Certainly, most large professional scopes are altaz with rotators. And
while the motion control is simple in principle, in practice it would
add a lot of cost to a small mount. An equatorial mount only requires
accurate, low-noise tracking on a single axis. The other axis can be
much simpler mechanically, as it is only tweaked occasionally in
response to a guider signal.

An altaz mount used for imaging requires accurate, low-noise control
of three axes. It also has a singularity at the zenith (where it can't
track), which is generally a bigger problem for imagers than the polar
singularity of an equatorial mount.

There isn't a singularity of an equatorial mount at the pole - the drive
just has to rotate at sidereal rate give or take everywhere except very
near the horizon (and when tracking the moon).


Follow the logic son.

By sidereal rate you mean the homocentric observation coincident with
star trails that a star will return to the same position in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds as determined within the average 24 hour day as an
extension of the 365/ 366 day calendar framework. This is a considerable
distance from the original proposal of Flamsteed who lunged at a
conclusion that rotational rates are constant via stellar circumpolar motion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed



Are you insane? It's exactly the same.


This shouldn't be happening in the 21st century as the parent reference
for rotation is the central Sun while the orbital position is defined by
the annual first appearance of a star -

".. on account of the procession 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 238 BC

The utter insanity belongs to you and the rest here and you all fight to
disassociate experience of sunrise/sunset from a single rotation by
assigning 1465 rotations for 1461 days -

"During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its own axis 366.26 times" Wikipedia





The development of timekeeping is absolutely contingent on the proportion
of days to years which in turn reflect a close proximity of rotations to
orbital circuits. It takes 4 annual circuits to nail down that proportion
to a reasonable value of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

No the rotation of the Earth is independent of the orbit. There is no
simple relationship. Your holy 1461 is wrong. That's why we have the
Gregorian calendar which is still only an approximation.


You people know nothing, not even the basic foundation of experience
which assigns relevance to the appearance of the Sun followed by the
appearance of the stars with each rotation and then extends it as a
continuous stream of rotations bounded within four annual circuits of the Earth.

Clearly you all suffer from a disease as there is not 'holy' about 1461
rotations other than it emerges from the astronomical event where the
annual return of the star Sirius doesn't happen after a continuous cycle
of 365 days and rotations but skips an appearance after the 4th cycle. This
wonderful,wonderful event defines the Earth's orbital position in space
using daily rotations as a gauge.






Because of the existence of a fictional ' solar rate vs sidereal rate'
dumped on rotation it becomes impossible to ascertain the dual surface
rotations from separate causes, the daily rotational cycle and the
experience of the day/night cycle, the surface rotation to the central
Sun as a component of the Earth's orbital motion and the accounting for
the polar day/night cycle.

It is injurious to everyone alive to propose two rotational values for
the same rotation hence the 'sidereal rate' is bogus and unhelpful for
anything involving the motions of the planet. If you can't apply basic
logic then take up something else like gardening or stamp collecting.

Please explain the nature of this injury.

How a bunch of mindless thugs got hold of astronomy and can't handle the
most basic of human experiences of the motions of the Earth is one thing,
how it was done using human timekeeping yet nobody wants to know is something else.#

You all behave as if nothing is wrong and that is astonishing, not you
and your rotting mind but rather people who should know better and
realize it is creating a type of communal autism where people are
disconnected from the experiences of the motions which make their own lives possible.




You know you'r really very good at diagnosing your own problems. The
trouble is you always think it's the rest of the human race not you who is
ill.