Rod Mollise's Skywatch Newsletter Fall Issue Ready for Download

That's right...our HUGE Fall issue is on the streets.

Wut's innit?

Sometimes It Pays to Take a Second Look: Uncle Rod reviews
AstroPlanner

A Chiefland Virgin: Joe Kuhn's "first time."

Eagle's Nest Observatory: Walt Dutchak shows you how to build a home
for your scope and not spend a lot of moola.

MTF and Chocolate: Drew Sullivan explains the image quality facts o'
life in an amusing way.

Indoor Collimation: Ron Niklasson and Eric Smith tell you how they did
it to their SCTs.

_Pocket Sky Atlas Review_ and a Focus Aid for the ETX125: Nice pair of
articles by Jack Fox.

The Latest in the World of Video Astronomy: Jack Huerkamp tells all
about it in this issue's special supplement.

Plenty o' Stuff and Nonsense in the usual Unk Rod fashion.

How do you get it? Just go he
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/newsletter/skywatch.htm
And download the .pdf...it's FREE, by the way.



Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland

wrote:
That's right...our HUGE Fall issue is on the streets.

Wut's innit?

Sometimes It Pays to Take a Second Look: Uncle Rod reviews
AstroPlanner

A Chiefland Virgin: Joe Kuhn's "first time."

Eagle's Nest Observatory: Walt Dutchak shows you how to build a home
for your scope and not spend a lot of moola.

MTF and Chocolate: Drew Sullivan explains the image quality facts o'
life in an amusing way.

Indoor Collimation: Ron Niklasson and Eric Smith tell you how they did
it to their SCTs.

_Pocket Sky Atlas Review_ and a Focus Aid for the ETX125: Nice pair of
articles by Jack Fox.

The Latest in the World of Video Astronomy: Jack Huerkamp tells all
about it in this issue's special supplement.

Plenty o' Stuff and Nonsense in the usual Unk Rod fashion.

How do you get it? Just go he
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/newsletter/skywatch.htm
And download the .pdf...it's FREE, by the way.



Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland

No offense uncle,this is lightweight astro- imaging and although it is
indeed a wonderful pursuit,it is'nt strictly astronomy.

These guys need something more substantial so for a few months they can
go to the original journals of the Royal society and find out for
themselves what exactly went wrong and why today astronomy is an
exercise in magnification and nothing else.

I can suggest they search in one incredibly exciting work from 1660
which demonstrates the correlation between clocks and axial rotation
by putting in the search field the following title - "Instructions
Concerning the Use of Pendulum Watches '

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...ferrer=default

They can also see the emergence of celestial sphere geometers such as
Nevil Maskelyne about 100 years later by putting in the search field '
Some remarks Equation Time'.

The first work from 1669 is a joy to behold as it presents various
ways to fix the correlation of the 24 hour clock day to axial rotation
at a quarter of a degree for each minute of clock time and thereby fix
Longitude location whereas Maskelyne's 1764 attempt is to force the
Equation of Time into celestial sphere geometry.

I do not know how long men can hold out knowing that a huge error
occured through people like Maskelyne while people like John Harrison
and the author of the 1669 work promote the astronomical jewel of a
system that developed out of Copernican heliocentricity,best expressed
as 24 hours for 360 degrees of rotation.

There is no gee-whiz element to any of this,just a lovely satisfaction
in seeing the really old astronomical heritage sparkle from behind less
careful ,dull and dreary concepts.

HI Oriole:

You don't offend me. Actually, I feel very sorry for you. Find yourself
a boyfriend or girlfriend, take up a hobby (basket weaving might be
just your thing), go camping. But leave astronomy to those of the
non-loon persuasion, OK?


oriel36 wrote:

No offense uncle,this is lightweight astro- imaging and although it is
indeed a wonderful pursuit,it is'nt strictly astronomy.

These guys need something more substantial so for a few months they can
go to the original journals of the Royal society and find out for
themselves what exactly went wrong and why today astronomy is an
exercise in magnification and nothing else.

I can suggest they search in one incredibly exciting work from 1660
which demonstrates the correlation between clocks and axial rotation
by putting in the search field the following title - "Instructions
Concerning the Use of Pendulum Watches '

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...ferrer=default

They can also see the emergence of celestial sphere geometers such as
Nevil Maskelyne about 100 years later by putting in the search field '
Some remarks Equation Time'.

The first work from 1669 is a joy to behold as it presents various
ways to fix the correlation of the 24 hour clock day to axial rotation
at a quarter of a degree for each minute of clock time and thereby fix
Longitude location whereas Maskelyne's 1764 attempt is to force the
Equation of Time into celestial sphere geometry.

I do not know how long men can hold out knowing that a huge error
occured through people like Maskelyne while people like John Harrison
and the author of the 1669 work promote the astronomical jewel of a
system that developed out of Copernican heliocentricity,best expressed
as 24 hours for 360 degrees of rotation.

There is no gee-whiz element to any of this,just a lovely satisfaction
in seeing the really old astronomical heritage sparkle from behind less
careful ,dull and dreary concepts.

wrote:
HI Oriole:

You don't offend me. Actually, I feel very sorry for you. Find yourself
a boyfriend or girlfriend, take up a hobby (basket weaving might be
just your thing), go camping. But leave astronomy to those of the
non-loon persuasion, OK?


Nobody is doing anything without the correct way to isolate axial
rotation and orbital motion of the Earth and anyone can take up the
correct working principles by consulting the old journals and the
articles which existed before Flamsteed created that terrible error -
justifying the return of a star in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec using the
axial and orbital motions of the Earth.

Instead of unwrapping a bright shiny new telescope,people would be
better served by using contemporary imaging to untangle the awful
Flamsteed/Newtonian mutations which are proving so destructive in areas
such as climatology.Fom astronomy to climatology is no great leap for
those who develop their intuitive intelligence and although Copernicus
made a good attempt to explain hemispherical weather patterns (seasons)
through astronomical means,a total modification to the astronomical
outlook is required to satisfy contemporary data.In short,people whoes
attempts at astronomy are destroyed by clouds or light pollution are
not strictly astronomers .

As for being offensive,you are not really offensive the same way that
creationists are not really offensive however Western civilisation
cannot support the majority view of celestial sphere geometers and
their exotic conceptions for solar system motion never mind the greater
structures in the celestial arena.

You are fortunate that heliocentric astronomy is a rarified
intellectual and intuitive atmosphere presently but with the aid of
contemporary imaging it will become within the realm of reasonably
intelligent people.So,magnification is great and I am all for it but it
is'nt strictly astronomy.






oriel36 wrote:

No offense uncle,this is lightweight astro- imaging and although it is
indeed a wonderful pursuit,it is'nt strictly astronomy.

These guys need something more substantial so for a few months they can
go to the original journals of the Royal society and find out for
themselves what exactly went wrong and why today astronomy is an
exercise in magnification and nothing else.

I can suggest they search in one incredibly exciting work from 1660
which demonstrates the correlation between clocks and axial rotation
by putting in the search field the following title - "Instructions
Concerning the Use of Pendulum Watches '

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...ferrer=default

They can also see the emergence of celestial sphere geometers such as
Nevil Maskelyne about 100 years later by putting in the search field '
Some remarks Equation Time'.

The first work from 1669 is a joy to behold as it presents various
ways to fix the correlation of the 24 hour clock day to axial rotation
at a quarter of a degree for each minute of clock time and thereby fix
Longitude location whereas Maskelyne's 1764 attempt is to force the
Equation of Time into celestial sphere geometry.

I do not know how long men can hold out knowing that a huge error
occured through people like Maskelyne while people like John Harrison
and the author of the 1669 work promote the astronomical jewel of a
system that developed out of Copernican heliocentricity,best expressed
as 24 hours for 360 degrees of rotation.

There is no gee-whiz element to any of this,just a lovely satisfaction
in seeing the really old astronomical heritage sparkle from behind less
careful ,dull and dreary concepts.

wrote:

HI Oriole:

You don't offend me. Actually, I feel very sorry for you. Find yourself
a boyfriend or girlfriend, take up a hobby (basket weaving might be
just your thing), go camping. But leave astronomy to those of the
non-loon persuasion, OK?


You need to be a very 'special' person to believe that the return of a
star to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds justifies the
rotation of the Earth's rotation on its axis.

The guys here get a second chance by going to the Royal Society
Journals and by affirming what the anonymous author of 'Instructions
Concerning The Use Of Pendulum Watches At Sea' knew in respect to the
correlation between clocks and axial rotation.It is one of the most
important acts as an astronomer to affirm and restore accurate working
principles which isolate axial and orbital motions from the later
mutations of the likes of Flamsteed and Maskelyne.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...ferrer=default

The struggle to promote the value for axial rotation as an independent
and constant motion,at least where clocks are concerned, should not
have gone on for so long but with contemporary imaging availible to
explain the reasoning behind heliocentricity by isolating the Earth's
orbital motion,the flip side - axial rotation in isolation cannot be
far behind.

In the astronomical scheme of things,the 17th century celestial sphere
mutations are a minor distraction and even though they did get out of
hand,it is now possible to identify the cause of the errors are correct
them with as little fuss as possible.






oriel36 wrote:

No offense uncle,this is lightweight astro- imaging and although it is
indeed a wonderful pursuit,it is'nt strictly astronomy.

These guys need something more substantial so for a few months they can
go to the original journals of the Royal society and find out for
themselves what exactly went wrong and why today astronomy is an
exercise in magnification and nothing else.

I can suggest they search in one incredibly exciting work from 1660
which demonstrates the correlation between clocks and axial rotation
by putting in the search field the following title - "Instructions
Concerning the Use of Pendulum Watches '

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...ferrer=default

They can also see the emergence of celestial sphere geometers such as
Nevil Maskelyne about 100 years later by putting in the search field '
Some remarks Equation Time'.

The first work from 1669 is a joy to behold as it presents various
ways to fix the correlation of the 24 hour clock day to axial rotation
at a quarter of a degree for each minute of clock time and thereby fix
Longitude location whereas Maskelyne's 1764 attempt is to force the
Equation of Time into celestial sphere geometry.

I do not know how long men can hold out knowing that a huge error
occured through people like Maskelyne while people like John Harrison
and the author of the 1669 work promote the astronomical jewel of a
system that developed out of Copernican heliocentricity,best expressed
as 24 hours for 360 degrees of rotation.

There is no gee-whiz element to any of this,just a lovely satisfaction
in seeing the really old astronomical heritage sparkle from behind less
careful ,dull and dreary concepts.

wrote:

HI Oriole:

You don't offend me. Actually, I feel very sorry for you. Find yourself
a boyfriend or girlfriend, take up a hobby (basket weaving might be
just your thing), go camping. But leave astronomy to those of the
non-loon persuasion, OK?



You need to be a very 'special' person to believe that the return of a
star to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds justifies the
rotation of the Earth on its axis.

The guys here get a second chance to be astronomers by going to the
Royal Society Journals and by affirming what the anonymous author of
'Instructions Concerning The Use Of Pendulum Watches At Sea' knew in
respect to the correlation between clocks and axial rotation at 4
minutes clock time for each degree of rotation.It is one of the most
important acts as an astronomer to affirm and restore accurate working
principles which isolate axial and orbital motions from the later
mutations of the likes of Flamsteed and Maskelyne.


http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...p0k45)/app/hom...



The struggle to promote the value for axial rotation as an independent
and constant motion,at least where clocks are concerned, should not
have gone on for so long but with contemporary imaging availible to
explain the reasoning behind heliocentricity by isolating the Earth's
orbital motion,the flip side - axial rotation in isolation cannot be
far behind,at least in terms of being easy to grasp.


In the astronomical scheme of things,the 17th century celestial sphere
mutations are a distraction and even though they did get out of
hand,it is now possible to identify the cause of the errors are correct

them with as little fuss as possible. Any person here,with a little
effort,can enjoy how they used the Equation of Time to govern the link
between clock time and Longitude location but most perish on the rocks
of sunrise/sunset in determining local noon and clock noon through the
Equation of Time.

It is easier to appreciate the broad outlines of the two step process
which created the 24 hour day first and then the heliocentric adaption
to axial rotation out of the variations in the total length of a
natural day from noon to noon.It is also quite easy to make a mistake
like Flamsteed did and Maskelyne expanded on but the main idea is that
all this can be corrected and enjoyed again by humanity.

The only thing standing in the way are celestial sphere geometers and
their magnification concerns.



oriel36 wrote:

No offense uncle,this is lightweight astro- imaging and although it is
indeed a wonderful pursuit,it is'nt strictly astronomy.

These guys need something more substantial so for a few months they can
go to the original journals of the Royal society and find out for
themselves what exactly went wrong and why today astronomy is an
exercise in magnification and nothing else.

I can suggest they search in one incredibly exciting work from 1660
which demonstrates the correlation between clocks and axial rotation
by putting in the search field the following title - "Instructions
Concerning the Use of Pendulum Watches '

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...ferrer=default

They can also see the emergence of celestial sphere geometers such as
Nevil Maskelyne about 100 years later by putting in the search field '
Some remarks Equation Time'.

The first work from 1669 is a joy to behold as it presents various
ways to fix the correlation of the 24 hour clock day to axial rotation
at a quarter of a degree for each minute of clock time and thereby fix
Longitude location whereas Maskelyne's 1764 attempt is to force the
Equation of Time into celestial sphere geometry.

I do not know how long men can hold out knowing that a huge error
occured through people like Maskelyne while people like John Harrison
and the author of the 1669 work promote the astronomical jewel of a
system that developed out of Copernican heliocentricity,best expressed
as 24 hours for 360 degrees of rotation.

There is no gee-whiz element to any of this,just a lovely satisfaction
in seeing the really old astronomical heritage sparkle from behind less
careful ,dull and dreary concepts.