Eclipse for 21st century observers

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 09:57:55 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

Using words with the same meanings as everyone else does is helpful for
effective communication.

John Savard

Au contraire, Sir, I believe this is strictly a case of:
"It takes one to know one." ;-)
Or: "All your basket cases in one egg?"
"Effective communication," seems an unlikely term where 1461 is concerned.
Normally, I'd blame the parents.
But where, on Earth, does one draw the line for his understanding of normality? ;-)

It was because of the success of predictive astronomy which worked in a geocentric framework that Copernicus was expected to satisfy proposing the orbital motion of the Earth using the same framework and it couldn't be done.

What has been done here is the last vestiges of the geocentric framework are removed by introducing a partitioning of retrogrades between the inner and outer planets. As inner and outer are relative terms based on which planet the observations are made from, it is easy to dispense with the concerns of the slow of mind who can't keep up with the reasoning, after all, the image of the Earth from Mars uses the Sun as a central reference for what is inner and outer and this works for all planets -

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...e/pia21260.jpg

Unlike Copernicus who had to jump through hoops, the modern observer simply applies their normal judgments of motions albeit the extended time taken to put astronomical observations in context is the only case where movements at an experimental level transfer to large scale motions.

So once again, when the eclipse comes around the positions of Mercury and Venus should be under scrutiny in terms of their phases and whether they will be to the left or right of the Sun (I haven't checked) even if the world has to suffer the concerns of celestial sphere enthusiasts who have n intention of picking up the relevance of the solar eclipse.

Dude, I think you masturbate *way* too much.

Gerald Kelleher wrote in
:

It was because of the success of predictive astronomy which
worked in a geocentric framework that Copernicus was expected to
satisfy proposing the orbital motion of the Earth using the same
framework and it couldn't be done.

What has been done here is the last vestiges of the geocentric
framework are removed by introducing a partitioning of
retrogrades between the inner and outer planets. As inner and
outer are relative terms based on which planet the observations
are made from, it is easy to dispense with the concerns of the
slow of mind who can't keep up with the reasoning, after all,
the image of the Earth from Mars uses the Sun as a central
reference for what is inner and outer and this works for all
planets -

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f.../image/pia2126
0.jpg

Unlike Copernicus who had to jump through hoops, the modern
observer simply applies their normal judgments of motions albeit
the extended time taken to put astronomical observations in
context is the only case where movements at an experimental
level transfer to large scale motions.

So once again, when the eclipse comes around the positions of
Mercury and Venus should be under scrutiny in terms of their
phases and whether they will be to the left or right of the Sun
(I haven't checked) even if the world has to suffer the concerns
of celestial sphere enthusiasts who have n intention of picking
up the relevance of the solar eclipse.







--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Having established that the terms inner and outer are relative terms using the proper definition of a planet (using their observed motions), the observer can enjoy working with observations that haven't been considered since the emergence of a Sun centered system.

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

Seen from Mercury, there are no inner planets so retrograde motions would be of the nature of relative speeds much like we see Mars and Uranus do in the above image as they fall temporarily behind in view as the Earth overtakes them. With Mercury observations would be slightly different for one important reason. Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its 88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion of Uranus seen from Mercury. I would be throwing good information after bad if I mentioned the awful empirical view of retrogrades which is plain crude but only to observe that determination of solar system structure and the motions of the planets are made from a moving planet and not a hypothetical observer on the Sun.

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:01:25 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its 88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion of Uranus seen from Mercury.

This is too stupid even for you, Gerald.

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 12:55:18 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:01:25 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its 88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion of Uranus seen from Mercury.

This is too stupid even for you, Gerald.

Even he can make a typo, saying "the rapidly moving Uranus" when he meant "the
rapidly moving Mercury".

Maybe it's _still_ "stupid", or at least in error, but Uranus' retrograde loops
as seen by an observer on Mercury would certainly be small.

John Savard

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:55:18 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:01:25 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its 88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion of Uranus seen from Mercury.

This is too stupid even for you, Gerald.

Oops, you got me on that one, I meant the rapidly moving Mercury would not discern any appreciate backward motion of Uranus as it is simply moving so fast with each orbital pass of the outer planet and Uranus is moving so slow. Then again, reading the passage correctly, it would easily have been seen to be a typo of sorts.

http://www.theplanetstoday.com/#

From what I see, Mercury may be barely discernible when the solar eclipse occurs as seen from Earth as retrogrades of the inner planets rely on a different perspective, much like the satellites of Jupiter.

Instead of attacking me it would be more productive if people simply called out as many insights of their own if they got into the spirit of this type of astronomy.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:55:18 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:01:25 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a
rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its
88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion
of Uranus seen from Mercury.

This is too stupid even for you, Gerald.

Oops, you got me on that one, I meant the rapidly moving Mercury would
not discern any appreciate backward motion of Uranus as it is simply
moving so fast with each orbital pass of the outer planet and Uranus is
moving so slow. Then again, reading the passage correctly, it would
easily have been seen to be a typo of sorts.

http://www.theplanetstoday.com/#

From what I see, Mercury may be barely discernible when the solar eclipse
occurs as seen from Earth as retrogrades of the inner planets rely on a
different perspective, much like the satellites of Jupiter.

Instead of attacking me it would be more productive if people simply
called out as many insights of their own if they got into the spirit of
this type of astronomy.





I see you're still using your favourite astrology site. Every time you look
at this you can be reminded of this truth of Newton's statement as you look
at the top diagram with its viewpoint "above" the sun and can see that from
the sun there are no retrogrades.

On Saturday, 15 July 2017 08:55:18 UTC+2, wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:01:25 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its 88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion of Uranus seen from Mercury.

This is too stupid even for you, Gerald.

One certainly has to ask whom 1461 considers his audience?
Nobody, least of all those responsible for the great advances in science, is worthy of his most grudging respect.
Arrogance beyond sanity is his stock in trade.
Rudeness, well beyond basic good manners, his method of undermining all accepted science and logical argument.
My own feeling is that he was a science teacher in some minor, Catholic secondary school.
After retirement he was so crushed by his total lack of accomplishment that he had a complete breakdown.
The remnants of which we see lying bruised and battered before our very feet.
He thrives on being noticed, even when it is in the form of the routine criticism of his [feigned?] idiocy by all and sundry.
So, a main course of sadomasochism, with a side order of overt idiocy, served up with a nice, big dollop of acerbic, sociopathic sauce.

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 1:09:42 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:55:18 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 7:01:25 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Although Uranus would appear to move against the background stars at a
rate of 4 degrees every year, from the rapidly moving Uranus with its
88 day orbital period, there would be no discernible retrograde motion
of Uranus seen from Mercury.

This is too stupid even for you, Gerald.

Oops, you got me on that one, I meant the rapidly moving Mercury would
not discern any appreciate backward motion of Uranus as it is simply
moving so fast with each orbital pass of the outer planet and Uranus is
moving so slow. Then again, reading the passage correctly, it would
easily have been seen to be a typo of sorts.

http://www.theplanetstoday.com/#

From what I see, Mercury may be barely discernible when the solar eclipse
occurs as seen from Earth as retrogrades of the inner planets rely on a
different perspective, much like the satellites of Jupiter.

Instead of attacking me it would be more productive if people simply
called out as many insights of their own if they got into the spirit of
this type of astronomy.





I see you're still using your favourite astrology site. Every time you look
at this you can be reminded of this truth of Newton's statement as you look
at the top diagram with its viewpoint "above" the sun and can see that from
the sun there are no retrogrades.

First things first,the website is brilliant and rather than disparage that it is as an astrological website as I always knew it was, there is nothing out there comparable to it for all the fuss about an information age.

Retrogrades are merely how we see the motions of the planets from our planet or indeed any other planet using the background stars as a gauge. If I extended it out further to the 165 year orbit of Neptune that represents a 2 degree movement against the background stars for each Earth orbit then the results would be even clearer. Mercury with an orbital period of 88 days would register no observed retrograde motion due to the relative speeds of both planets yet the outer planet would move 2 degrees against the background stars for roughly 4 orbits of Mercury.

You poor folk never get tired of dithering around when the imaging language of astronomy is fairly straightforward and above the failures of one individual in the late 17th century. In little over a month the inner planets should be seen with the central Sun in the same image with its glare conveniently subdued by our own moon.

http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/e...Tse1997uw2.png

I simply can't imagine a dour existence before all that is great in modern technology which allows to images to circulate and despite the experience that there isn't the slightest interest in interpretative astronomy, it still stands that your poor creatures are willing to stick with an identification exercise within a celestial sphere framework.