Parallax by Day

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
Dear group,

Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
separated by 2370 km apart.

For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please see
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm .... someone please
provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
whatever else I may have missed.

Clear skies!


Cool! Thanks to both of you for sharing.


Shawn

On May 24, 9:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Dear group,

Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
separated by 2370 km apart.

For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
whatever else I may have missed.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

.

The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.

snip



Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
thing in correct context.

Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
estimates?

The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Astronomers have made use of occultations and specifically using Io
and Jupiter -

http://www.lafterhall.com/io_occulta..._jferreira.jpg

Of course these astronomers worked with orbital comparisons between
Earth and Jupiter in determining the insight that the illusion of the
irregular motion of Io can be explained in terms of finite light
speed.As yuo creeps can't even acknowledge orbital comparisons between
the Earth and the other planets as the main argument for
heliocentricity,you are unlikely to appreciate the Keplerian and
Roemerian refinements of the system

You should be delighted that you are getting a free education,I would
show you where Newton was very naughty in bundling the Keplerian
insight on orbital geometries with the Roemerian insight on finite
light distance but I just find it funny nowadays -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say,
a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined." Newton



The nice thing is that modern imaging removes all the garbage of
Newton and exposes the real reasoning behind Copernican reasoning and
even the later refinements.So far you seem to detest astronomy and
what those images are telling you about not only the motions of the
other planets but also the motion of the Earth -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...loop_tezel.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_fd8O1sk3I

You should enjoy how the faster orbital motion of the Earth accounts
for retrogrades of the outer planets and the faster orbital motion of
the inner planets overtaking the slower Earth accounts for
transits,all bound together in a common heliocentric orbit.

Until you learn that much,you are adhere to the damaging doctrine of
astrology.

oriel36 wrote:
On May 24, 9:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Dear group,

Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
separated by 2370 km apart.

For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
whatever else I may have missed.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

.

The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.

snip



Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
thing in correct context.

Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
estimates?

The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Astronomers have made use of occultations and specifically using Io
and Jupiter -

snip


You should enjoy how the faster orbital motion of the Earth accounts
for retrogrades of the outer planets and the faster orbital motion of
the inner planets overtaking the slower Earth accounts for
transits,all bound together in a common heliocentric orbit.

Until you learn that much,you are adhere to the damaging doctrine of
astrology.


Oriel,

I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm

The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)

I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.

I got an estimate of 443,368 km. This is assuming an image scale of
about 3.25"/pixel, which I got from the diameter of the Moon,

557 pixels using the ruler tool in Photoshop CS2
1812" according to http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/diskmap.html

The distance between the two images of Regulus is 337 pixels = 1096".

Moon distance = (Selsey Athens distance / 2) / tan(1096"/2)

I think the error comes from assuming that the Selsey-Athens base of the
triangle is at right angles to the Earth-Moon vector. In general it
won't be. If tilting that line up to make it perpendicular shortens it
to about 2100 km, we get a very accurate estimate.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

On May 24, 9:59 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On May 24, 9:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Dear group,

Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
separated by 2370 km apart.

For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
whatever else I may have missed.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

.

The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.

snip

Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
thing in correct context.

Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
estimates?

The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Astronomers have made use of occultations and specifically using Io
and Jupiter -

snip



You should enjoy how the faster orbital motion of the Earth accounts
for retrogrades of the outer planets and the faster orbital motion of
the inner planets overtaking the slower Earth accounts for
transits,all bound together in a common heliocentric orbit.

Until you learn that much,you are adhere to the damaging doctrine of
astrology.

Oriel,

I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.

Clear skies!

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You openly mock the methods of astronomers,first the Copernican
insight based on the orbital motion of the Earth,then Kepler's use of
orbital comparisons between Earth and Mars to determine a more refined
orbital geometry and the Romerian Equation of Light insight based on
orbital comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.

The motion of the visble stars of our galaxy around a central axis
will change their orientation to the external galaxies,as you
creatures have the visible stars stuck on an astrological framework
there is no possibility of appreciating this great cycle,even in
principle.The appreciation of Milky Way stellar carousel should be a
matter of course along with the normal perception that the foreground
stars would alter their positions to the external galaxies but this is
the dark ages of astronomy and external galaxies are referenced off
the constellations and its celestial sphere geometry.

Successful people do not do this,men have always had clear geometric
judgements based on physical considerations to create some of the
great achievements of mankind but not this,not this astrological/
magnification exercise .You openly mock uygens treatise on how the 24
hour day is created from variations in the length of the daily cycle
determined at noon or rather the tremedous amount of effort by
civilisation after civilisation to refine the methods that now
constitute the clock/calendar system.

What is it with the English,did John Harrison not put you astrologers
to bed when he invented accurate clocks based on Huygens 24 hour/360
degree principles.The same miserable astrological atmosphere still
prevails not only on account of your stupid correlation between
clocks and axial rotation but the greatest Western astronomical
discovery of all - the Copernican heliocentric system.I well
understand Harrison's frustrations when faced with festering hypocrisy
and it is far worse today.,the difference is that I have the actual
images to show exactly what you lot are- astrologers with telescopes.

In article .com,
oriel36 wrote:

You openly mock the methods of astronomers,

No, we openly mock *you*.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article .com,
oriel36 wrote:


You openly mock the methods of astronomers,


No, we openly mock *you*.

AWESOME comeback. :-)

Anthony.


-- Richard

Ernie Wright wrote:

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm


The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)


I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.


I got an estimate of 443,368 km. This is assuming an image scale of
about 3.25"/pixel, which I got from the diameter of the Moon,

557 pixels using the ruler tool in Photoshop CS2
1812" according to http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/diskmap.html

The distance between the two images of Regulus is 337 pixels = 1096".

Moon distance = (Selsey Athens distance / 2) / tan(1096"/2)

I think the error comes from assuming that the Selsey-Athens base of the
triangle is at right angles to the Earth-Moon vector. In general it
won't be. If tilting that line up to make it perpendicular shortens it
to about 2100 km, we get a very accurate estimate.

Thanks for the feedback Ernie. My results vary slightly due to SkyMap
Pro which indicates the moon had an apparent diameter of 1839.34" and
the parallax angle which I estimated to be 1113.6". My estimate as to
the distance also ignored the image scale I specified in an earlier post
which for some reason is not correct and I must check as to the reason(s).

Anyway, a nice exercise. Just ask Oriel.

Anthony.


- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

[concerning http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm]

Thanks for the feedback Ernie.

Thanks to you and Pete for a fascinating collaborative exercise!

I hope you'll forgive me now for blathering a bit, but it'll lead to a
much better estimate of the Moon's distance derived from your images.

We both got estimates of about 440,000 km, somewhat higher than the true
distance of about 396,000 km, and I mentioned yesterday that most of the
error is because the base of the triangle we're using, the line between
Selsey and Athens, is skewed. The base we *should* be using is a line
that directly faces the Moon.

The situation looks something like this:

.. * Selsey
.. \
.. \ -------- to the Moon
.. \
.. * Athens

The base we should be using,

.. * Selsey ....... |
.. |
.. | -------- to the Moon
.. |
.. * Athens ... |

is the projection of the Selsey-Athens line onto the image plane. Its
length is just the dot product of two vectors: the Selsey-Athens line and
the Earth-Moon line. To find the vectors, we need a common coordinate
system for Athens, Selsey, and the Moon.

I used geocentric equatorial coordinates. The r.a. and dec. of the Moon
are easy enough to find. The coordinates for the cities are just the r.a.
and dec. of the zenith at the time of the observation, which are the local
sidereal time and geographic latitude, respectively.

Convert these to cartesian coordinates in the usual way:

x = cos( dec ) * cos( ra )
y = cos( dec ) * sin( ra )
z = sin( dec )

Subtract the Athens (x, y, z) from the Selsey (x, y, z) and normalize
(divide by the vector length) to get a unit vector pointing from one to
the other. The dot product of this direction vector with the one for
the Moon is the cosine of the angle between them. The length of the
projection we want is the cosine of the difference between this angle
and 90 degrees.

When I did this, I got a length factor of 0.928. Multiplying this by the
chord length distance between Athens and Selsey (2356 km) gives a triangle
base of 2186 km. Using your (probably more careful than mine) estimate of
the parallax angle, 1113.6", yields a distance estimate of 404,897 km, for
an error of only a little more than 2%. That's pretty cool!

Anyway, a nice exercise. Just ask Oriel.

Too bad Gerald's not equipped to appreciate it. It very much has the
flavor of the Ancient Greek efforts to measure the scale of the solar
system.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

On May 25, 7:02 pm, Ernie Wright wrote:
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
[concerninghttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm]

Thanks for the feedback Ernie.

Thanks to you and Pete for a fascinating collaborative exercise!

I hope you'll forgive me now for blathering a bit, but it'll lead to a
much better estimate of the Moon's distance derived from your images.

We both got estimates of about 440,000 km, somewhat higher than the true
distance of about 396,000 km, and I mentioned yesterday that most of the
error is because the base of the triangle we're using, the line between
Selsey and Athens, is skewed. The base we *should* be using is a line
that directly faces the Moon.

The situation looks something like this:

. * Selsey
. \
. \ -------- to the Moon
. \
. * Athens

The base we should be using,

. * Selsey ....... |
. |
. | -------- to the Moon
. |
. * Athens ... |

is the projection of the Selsey-Athens line onto the image plane. Its
length is just the dot product of two vectors: the Selsey-Athens line and
the Earth-Moon line. To find the vectors, we need a common coordinate
system for Athens, Selsey, and the Moon.

I used geocentric equatorial coordinates. The r.a. and dec. of the Moon
are easy enough to find. The coordinates for the cities are just the r.a.
and dec. of the zenith at the time of the observation, which are the local
sidereal time and geographic latitude, respectively.

Convert these to cartesian coordinates in the usual way:

x = cos( dec ) * cos( ra )
y = cos( dec ) * sin( ra )
z = sin( dec )

Subtract the Athens (x, y, z) from the Selsey (x, y, z) and normalize
(divide by the vector length) to get a unit vector pointing from one to
the other. The dot product of this direction vector with the one for
the Moon is the cosine of the angle between them. The length of the
projection we want is the cosine of the difference between this angle
and 90 degrees.

When I did this, I got a length factor of 0.928. Multiplying this by the
chord length distance between Athens and Selsey (2356 km) gives a triangle
base of 2186 km. Using your (probably more careful than mine) estimate of
the parallax angle, 1113.6", yields a distance estimate of 404,897 km, for
an error of only a little more than 2%. That's pretty cool!

Anyway, a nice exercise. Just ask Oriel.

Too bad Gerald's not equipped to appreciate it. It very much has the
flavor of the Ancient Greek efforts to measure the scale of the solar
system.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

The Greeks indeed !,I know the politics of the English and while most
of you will keep a stiff upper lip and organise a tea party among the
ruins of Western astronomy there is always the other side of the
English character,a Harrison or a Blake, who deals with matters head
on and these people are here.Those who will have to deal with the mess
created by a combination of Flamsteed's astrological framework and
Newton's false approach to and resolution of retrogrades have a task
many times the magnitude of Piltdown man ahead of them,the result will
be a clean break for astronomy for future generations to
appreciate,not to say that most of the basic principles can be
immediately understandable.

The shape of the restoration of astronomy takes a precise route,at
least for the basics and any person can enjoy them and work with them
without any fuss.It includes the use of 'transits' to affirm common
heliocentric orbits and a slight,but important diversion,to admire how
the correlation between clocks and the axial cycle is made through a
24 hour/360 degree equivalency.




The faster orbital motion of the Earth in an inner orbital circuit
accounts for the observed behavior of the other planets in our common
heliocentric motion -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

This resolution from an orbitally moving Earth allowed men to discern
that axial rotation caused the daily cycle.From this infered
principle,the Equation of Time correction was overlaid as a means to
keep the 24 hour day in sync with the axial cycle for all sorts of
practical purposes we enjoy today -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

The great principles expressed by Huygens is contingent on the
isolation of the orbital motion of the Earth and the man created the
first accurate pendulum clocks to match those principles.

The new approach to an affirmation of a common heliocentric orbits is
to look to the inner planets and their faster orbital motion.In the
time lapse footage of venus overtaking the slower Earth,we have a
contemporary addition to the Copernican insight of the Earth's orbital
motion which compliments the time lapse footage of the motions of the
outer planets.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_fd8O1sk3I

Whether looking to the slower motion of outer planets or the faster
motion of the inner planets,the great reasoning found in De
revolutionibus is served through contemporary imaging.The great
insight withers when a false and destructive approach is taken -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

The Americans are probably looking to the English for some sort of
direction on the most important matter to enter science in the last 3
centuries,how to work around a Newtonian conception that is useless
and cannot compete with contemporary imaging and time lapse
footage.That is not my problem and frankly it is not worth sticking
with an astronomically incompetent approach to observed motions and
how they fit into the heliocentric framework.

It must take some effort to overide human judgements on observed
motions of the planets and what they actually mean,specifically from
an orbitally moving Earth but whether called an indoctrination or a
disease,that is what it amounts to

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

As the google newsreader has been misbehaving for a few weeks and I
lost posts because of this,you get to enjoy a brief time with your
astrological framework and the conceptions attached to them.The
genuine astronomer here will find the experience to be sickening
once they recognise the brilliant thinking of the great astronomers.