Venusian shadow - part 2

On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 wrote:





On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN wrote:

Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?

Austin

Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
Jupiter or any of the other planets.

So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?

Austin

The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.

So they do appear to move ("apparent motion")? "Seen to" and
"apparent" are synonymous terms, oriel. Someone with your command of
language ought to know that.

Make up your mind. Either they do appear to move, or they don't.

Austin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.

I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
difference between apparent motions and true motions.

The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -

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

The heliocentric astronomers however used orbital comparisons between
the Earth's orbital motion and the other planets to conclude a common
heliocentric orbital motion -

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

There is no such thing as 'apparent' motion of Venus against an
axially rotating Earth unless you really want to highlight that Pete
here is an unapologetic astrologer.I am sure he has recognised that by
now but due to your spirited defence I get to really shopw the guy
just how stupid he is.

On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud wrote:
I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.

I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.

Austin

Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here

http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent

I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
"Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
perceived, or understood"

This may be where he is getting confused...

Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
"obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
the parched fields).

"In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"

L

--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.

"These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
think?"...Valerie Emmanuel

Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA

You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.

Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.


If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative ,as Kepler meant it,is 'intutive intelligence'
and when your astrophotographic stars try to make stupid correlations
in front of a real astronomer the result is that they disappear when
they are told about the physical considerations involved in their
notions.

Take away your telescopes and you are outright astrologers.

oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 wrote:






On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN wrote:


snip


True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.

I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
difference between apparent motions and true motions.

The only cartwheels I do is when I nail successfully a target (or
concept) so that my to-do list has one less entry outstanding.

Now, to add insult to injury, I will be starting a project next month
that will have YOU doing cartwheels. Seriously. ;-)


The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -

snip

Anthony.

On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud wrote:
I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.

I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.

Austin

Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here

http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent

I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
"Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
perceived, or understood"

This may be where he is getting confused...

Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
"obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
the parched fields).

"In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"

L

--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.

"These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
think?"...Valerie Emmanuel

Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA

You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.

Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.


If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative ,as Kepler meant it,is 'intutive intelligence'
and when your astrophotographic stars try to make stupid correlations
in front of a real astronomer the result is that they disappear when
they are told about the physical considerations involved in their
notions.

Take away your telescopes and you are outright astrologers.

On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud wrote:
I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.

I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.

Austin

Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here

http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent

I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
"Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
perceived, or understood"

This may be where he is getting confused...

Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
"obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
the parched fields).

"In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"

L

--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.

"These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
think?"...Valerie Emmanuel

Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA

You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.

Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.


If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative is 'intutive intelligence' otherwise known as
wisdom.

On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud wrote:
I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.

I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.

Austin

Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here

http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent

I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
"Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
perceived, or understood"

This may be where he is getting confused...

Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
"obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
the parched fields).

"In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"

L

--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.

"These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
think?"...Valerie Emmanuel

Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA

You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.

Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.


If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative is 'intutive intelligence' otherwise known as
wisdom.

On May 21, 5:54 pm, "Paul Buglass"
wrote:
Hi Gerald,

Hope you are well?


As a person who has known the oceans of this world,I can feel that
sense of loss of the burning of the Cutty Sark yet nobody ever feels
the loss of an entire astronomical tradition but I assure you I
do.Regardless,I am left to deal with the matter technically and must
set aside the insults directed towards me notwithstanding that all I
am doing is presenting a heritage that exists through the texts of the
original authors such as Copernicus and Huygens allied with modern
imaging.In this respect,I am the most modern of astronomers in my
attempt to use as many images as possible to carry my points or rather
carry the accurate astronomical working principles.

I am not made of stone,the delicate sense of an astronomer is as keen
as any person alive and this makes it all the more painful to contend
with minds that do not grasp just how fragile and fleeting existence
is before the scale and majesty of the great astronomical cycles,in
which case an astronomer is not just a commentator of the cycles but
also a participator in these cycles.In short,astronomy is not just an
optical experience but one which develops the intutive intelligence to
appreciate how the cycles make existence possible hence astronomy is
as much an exercise of the day rather than an observational hobby at
night.

I do not apologise for my poor presentation and grammer ,I am
delighted that I will never be proposed as a human model of clarity
however it is not intentional but rather a consequence of trying to
condense so much work for a hostile audience who can simply walk away
when it suits.

How am I ?, sore from the absence of astronomers to talk to and who
can do a better job than I can in restoring an astronomical heritage
from being solely an exercise in magnification








Do you work for BT Ireland in Dublin by any chance?


No


It's just I've seen your posts here over the last few years, (very
interesting by the way, but I can't claim to understand what it is you're
trying to enlighten us about), and I saw there was someone wth your name
working for BT in Dublin, at least there was a year or so ago.


Last year I worked in Northern Norway where you can see first hand why
there needs to be an enormous astronomical modification to the reasons
for global climate and hemispherical weather patterns otherwise known
as the seasons.The idea of using axial tilt to explain the seasons or
variations in inclination is incredible considering that it leads to
the idea the the Sun's apparent motion expressed as solar inclination
is responsible for the seasons.To kill two birds with the one
stone,you have Anthony here and his 17th century analemma hoax trying
to explain the same thing -

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

These people are entirely serious in keeping the 'circle of
illumination' straight and varying the axial orientation of the Earth
or rather giving the Earth an annual 23 1/2 degree axial
precession.In an era where in is crucial to determine the exact cause
of the seasons and consequently the correct astronomical background
for global climate,everything is expressed in terms of the apparent
motion and position of the Sun against the horizon as Pete here tries
to explain the shadow cast by Venus by framing it in astrological
terms.



I was just wondering if it was you? If it was you, maybe you can try and
explain your points face to face over a pint on my next trip to Dublin?

Cheers


Astronomy is about developing your intutive intelligence and Pascal
is correct is determining the near impossibility of explaining things
to people who need step by step explanations -

" But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do
not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and
plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well
inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of
intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They
are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the
greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of
themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous
that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them,
and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for
the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in
mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same
way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We
must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal





--

Paul B, York, UK.

"oriel36" wrote in message

oups.com...



On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN wrote:
On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN wrote:

Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?

Austin

Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
Jupiter or any of the other planets.

So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?

Austin

The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.They are
resolved by an orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars,transits
take care of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth and
apparent retrogrades are resolved by a faster orbitally moving Earth -

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

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

The apparent motions of the planets are always taken in context of
orbital comparisons ,at least by real astronomers,and not axial
rotation applied to the position of planets.

"If there was ever any doubt it was caused by sky glow, the motion of
the shadow caused by the apparent motion of Venus in the sky has
eliminated this" Pete

To link the motion of a shadow to the apparent motion of a planet may
get you a pat on the back from astrologers but it is about as far
away from the heights of Western astronomy as it is possible to
get,not just Copernican heliocentricity but Ptolemaic astronomy as
well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 22, 12:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN wrote:

On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 wrote:

On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN wrote:

snip



True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.

I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
difference between apparent motions and true motions.

The only cartwheels I do is when I nail successfully a target (or
concept) so that my to-do list has one less entry outstanding.


I am delighted that you are now an openly unapologetic astrologer and
safely conversant with the constellational framework as part of your
'targeting' and photographic endeavor.

I give you that project to do using ameridian line and a clock to
determine that the analemma is a 17 th century hoax for those who
know no better,sort of a giant astronomical Piltdown man if you like.





Now, to add insult to injury, I will be starting a project next month
that will have YOU doing cartwheels. Seriously. ;-)


If there were astronomers here they would have questions about why the
set values in the Equation of Time tables supplied by Huygens
differs from the modern tables -

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

http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ex...n_of_time.html

It is nearly impossible to believe ,at least after reading Huygen's
treatise,that successful people would believe that clocks keep pace
with axial rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds through a 360
degree cycle .

There is only one correlation between the axial cycle,clocks and
terrestrial longitudes and the value is exactly 24 hours/360
degrees.Up to a point unfamiliarity with the principles is acceptable
but then the situation shades off into the dominance of astrologers
and astrology due to inaction to address the single greatest known
error ever to be inflicted on humanity.

There is no satisfaction putting physicists and astrophotographers in
their place,it is the absence of genuine astronomers that makes it
disappointing and especially in this era where images and texts are
availible to appreciate the magnificent thinking of real astronomers.

What type of telescope did Copernicus and Kepler have ?,that's
right,you do not need one to be an astronomer.












The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -

snip

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 21 May, 09:19, Pete Lawrence
wrote:
Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
cast by Venus...

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/s...f-venus_2.html

--
Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Good work Pete.

Andrea T.