What the direct/retrograde motion of Venus looks like

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

The dovetailing between orbital perspectives and timekeeping and specifically proof of the Earth's annual circuit of the Sun is founded on the transition from an evening to a morning appearance of the stars close to the orbital plane or the faster moving Venus and Mercury.

I cannot imagine any adult being unable to make the call on the transition of the stars from an evening to morning appearance due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth. As a location passes through the circle of illumination it sees all objects to the left of the Sun so that when an observer continues to rotate they exit the circle of illumination and see the stars and celestial objects to the right of the Sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ&t=30s


How to ignore proof of the Earth's orbital motion while simultaneously ignoring the direct/retrogrades resolution of the faster moving planets along with phases/size increases is delinquency of the highest order in astronomy or any other science.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:


http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...July%202010-Ja
nuary%202012.jpg

The dovetailing between orbital perspectives and timekeeping and
specifically proof of the Earth's annual circuit of the Sun is founded on
the transition from an evening to a morning appearance of the stars close
to the orbital plane or the faster moving Venus and Mercury.

I cannot imagine any adult being unable to make the call on the transition
of the stars from an evening to morning appearance due solely to the
orbital motion of the Earth. As a location passes through the circle of
illumination it sees all objects to the left of the Sun so that when an
observer continues to rotate they exit the circle of illumination and see
the stars and celestial objects to the right of the Sun.

This is utterly incomprehensible - and I seriously doubt it's because
English is my second language. If you can rephrase to readable English I
could possibly figure out if I agree with you. But I guess not.

"dovetailing"?
"circle of illumination"?
"direct/retrogrades resolution"?

My impression is the you are fighting windmills.
Which you construct yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ&t=30s


How to ignore proof of the Earth's orbital motion while simultaneously
ignoring the direct/retrogrades resolution of the faster moving planets
along with phases/size increases is delinquency of the highest order in
astronomy or any other science.


--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 9:20:29 PM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:


http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...July%202010-Ja
nuary%202012.jpg

The dovetailing between orbital perspectives and timekeeping and
specifically proof of the Earth's annual circuit of the Sun is founded on
the transition from an evening to a morning appearance of the stars close
to the orbital plane or the faster moving Venus and Mercury.

I cannot imagine any adult being unable to make the call on the transition
of the stars from an evening to morning appearance due solely to the
orbital motion of the Earth. As a location passes through the circle of
illumination it sees all objects to the left of the Sun so that when an
observer continues to rotate they exit the circle of illumination and see
the stars and celestial objects to the right of the Sun.

This is utterly incomprehensible - and I seriously doubt it's because
English is my second language. If you can rephrase to readable English I
could possibly figure out if I agree with you. But I guess not.

"dovetailing"?
"circle of illumination"?
"direct/retrogrades resolution"?



Here, let me help you with the English language -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dovetailing

Let me help you also with the circle of illumination representing the circle at right angles to the orbital plane


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=circle+of+illumination

Direct/retrograde motions are for astronomers who can now distinguish how we see the faster moving planets from the slower moving planets as seen from a moving Earth.


Illusory open-ended loops of the slower planets where the Sun is never the center of the loop -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120809.html

Actual loop of the faster planets where the Sun is always at the center -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Any more dull people who need English or astronomical lessons ?.

Credit due to Alsing once the usual vapid stock phrases directed at me are bypassed,over the years he brought up all the objections possible required to put the partitioning of direct/retrogrades between faster and slower moving planets on to a solid conceptual footing.

Ultimately it is what people gain when they look out at the planets and how they relate to the moving Earth, the central Sun or to each other - an expansive astronomical viewpoint aided by magnification and computer imaging.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 9:20:29 PM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:


http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...July%202010-Ja
nuary%202012.jpg

The dovetailing between orbital perspectives and timekeeping and
specifically proof of the Earth's annual circuit of the Sun is founded on
the transition from an evening to a morning appearance of the stars close
to the orbital plane or the faster moving Venus and Mercury.

I cannot imagine any adult being unable to make the call on the transition
of the stars from an evening to morning appearance due solely to the
orbital motion of the Earth. As a location passes through the circle of
illumination it sees all objects to the left of the Sun so that when an
observer continues to rotate they exit the circle of illumination and see
the stars and celestial objects to the right of the Sun.

This is utterly incomprehensible - and I seriously doubt it's because
English is my second language. If you can rephrase to readable English I
could possibly figure out if I agree with you. But I guess not.

"dovetailing"?
"circle of illumination"?
"direct/retrogrades resolution"?





Here, let me help you with the English language -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dovetailing

I know that, but i fail to see what that has to do with "orbital
perspectives and timekeeping " &c. And in this context.
Or is it just a figure of speech? That would elude me.


Let me help you also with the circle of illumination representing the
circle at right angles to the orbital plane

So instead of rephrasing you tell me how to use Google. Cute.
That's not patronizing at all.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=circle+of+illumination

OK. I should have figured that one out, but I still can't see what
you´re getting at. You are confusing the evening/morning appearances,
which is an annual variation with the daily sunrise/sunset.

Evening/morning appearances (of stars) *are* due to orbital motion,
while sunrise/sunset ("entering/exiting the circle of illumination" in
your words) Is entirely due to earth's rotation. We all know that.

fail to see where your view differs from the rest of us.
You just use different words in long twisted sentences that defy
comprehension. Then you whine about people not agreeing.

But let's see: When a location enters the circle of illumination (i.e.
sunrise) it doesn't see any object to the left of the Sun, as they would
be below the horison. Unless you live down under.
(Left and ríght are not very good descriptors here...)

And they certainly won't reappear to the right of the Sun at sunset
(the location exits the circle of illumination), unless you refer to
circumpolar objects due north of the Sun.

I think you got lost in your own words. Go figure...


Direct/retrograde motions are for astronomers who can now distinguish how
we see the faster moving planets from the slower moving planets as seen
from a moving Earth.

Commom knowledge. But that's not what I asked about.
You talk about "direct/retrogrades resolution". What is that?

Illusory open-ended loops of the slower planets where the Sun is never the
center of the loop -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120809.html

Actual loop of the faster planets where the Sun is always at the center -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...July%202010-Ja
nuary%202012.jpg

Nothing new there - but I would call that illustration an actual loop.

Any more dull people who need English or astronomical lessons ?.

Yes. You! And you definitely need to improve your teaching skills.

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 8:45:49 AM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:



Direct/retrograde motions are for astronomers who can now distinguish how
we see the faster moving planets from the slower moving planets as seen
from a moving Earth.

Commom knowledge. But that's not what I asked about.
You talk about "direct/retrogrades resolution". What is that?


Not common knowledge before but it is now.

The illusory loops of the outer planets are converted into a simple perspective where the faster Earth overtaking the slower moving planets further from the Sun cause them to temporarily fall behind in view (direct/retrograde resolution).

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/011...2000_tezel.gif

The faster moving Venus and Mercury display actual loops with the Sun at the center -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Common knowledge - it is now !.

Taken from the perspective of the orbital plane , all observations of celestial objects when the Sun is out of view are to the left of the Sun as an evening appearance and to the right of the Sun (from the orbital plane perspective) -

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


I would leave this last part alone and just enjoy the partitioning of direct/retrogrades from a moving Earth for the first time in 500 years as not even the original sun centered astronomers got that right -

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . ." Galileo, 1632, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

Once you are shown how it is done it becomes common knowledge and that is fine. Unlike 500 years ago when Copernicus got it right with the slower moving outer planets, he spent 40 years trying to satisfy the antecedent Greek framework but in this era it is far, far worse with the proliferation of theorists who don't know the value of direct/retrogrades observations and their resolutions for even the outer planets.

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 8:45:49 AM UTC, Anders Eklöf wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Here, let me help you with the English language -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dovetailing

I know that, but i fail to see what that has to do with "orbital
perspectives and timekeeping " &c. And in this context.
Or is it just a figure of speech? That would elude me.



Let me help you out.

The astronomical event which is the foundation of timekeeping arises from the transition of stars from an evening to morning appearance -

".. 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 proof of the Earth's orbital motion uses the transition of the stars from left (evening appearance) to right (morning appearance) and that is what the original astronomers saw when Sirius was observed far enough to one side of the Sun's glare to be seen as a morning appearance -

http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast...liacsirius.JPG

You can see how the stars appear to move relative to the central Sun in the graphics while Venus and Mercury run their circuits (loops) around the Sun -

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

This is the dovetailing between timekeeping and orbital perspectives.

This is the first time in history that direct/retrogrades resolutions have been partitioned by perspective so in honour of the original astronomers who worked with a moving Earth and a stationary Sun but did not make the necessary distinction between faster or slower planets and whether they were closer or further from the Sun than our orbital circuit, easy to dismiss those who would have this as common knowledge,let them curse themselves for that lack of integrity.

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

We see observations of the planets and stars to the left of the Sun as an evening appearance as the horizon acts like a shade for the central/stationary Sun and likewise the opposite horizon at dawn when we see all objects to the right of the Sun. The only exception is a solar eclipse when the restriction is removed and the stars and planets are seen to the left and right of the central Sun simultaneously -

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2016/11/r...7595696172.jpg

The original Sun centred astronomers worked with a framework that was not going to allow for partitioning hence they bundled direct/retrogrades together without making the distinction that the slower moving planetary loops were illusory while the faster moving planets show actual loops. The same procedure would happen when viewed from Mars as the Earth would show phases and an actual loop of the Sun in its smaller and closer-in orbit.

The worst thing a person can do is know that they can act with integrity but choose not to for they diminish themselves before that which is inspiring and good. I do not address these people but those who have the ability to use their talents to open up an astronomy that matters for the good of themselves and humanity. This is no plea , it is a standard I set for myself for no person of heart can live with falsehood without destroying their own humanity and their connection to creation.

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:59:27 AM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Just where does one need to be standing to see this particular view?