Venusian shadow - part 2

On May 21, 4:34 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On May 21, 1:42 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Tim Duke wrote:

For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).

Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
absolutely pitch black!

First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!

Tim/Pete,

There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....

Anthony.

Before you go chasing Pete's shadows I suggest you look to your own
endeavor .

snip

Actually it is Venus' shadows I would like to chase. I have been
thinking about this exercise and challenge the past few hours and I am
very interested in Pete's project!

Anthony.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you not interested in getting rid of that late 17th century
analemma hoax which has a pedigree going back to Flamsteed ?

Do you not enjoy that there is no variable inclination involved in the
Equation of Time correction in the major human achievement in creating
the 24 hour day ?.


" When you first set your Watch by the Sun, you are to subduct from
the time observed by the Sun, the Aequation adjoyned to that day of
the Month in the Table, and to set the Watches to the remaining hours,
minuts and seconds, that is, the Watches are to be set so much slower,
than the time of the Sun, as (in the Table) is the Aequation of that
day; so that the Aequation of the Day, added to the time of the Clock,
is the true time by the Sun. And when after some days, you desire to
know by the Watch the time by the Sun, you are to add to the time,
shew'd by the Watch, the Aequation of that day; and the Aggregate
shall be the time by the Sun, if the Watch hath been perfectly well
adjusted after he measure of the Mean days;"

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

Is there something among you lot that has a desperate need to destroy
the correlation between clocks and terrestrial longitudes even when
you have an entire explanation in front of you.?.If you want a
challenge then create a meridian line as Huygens urges and then check
to see if adding minutes and seconds to clock noon will coincide with
the alignment of the shadow on the floor -

"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor (the manner of doing which is
sufficiently known; and note, that the utmost exactness herein is not
necessary and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire,
directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or
more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When
the middle of the Sun you are then immediately to set the Watch, not
precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation
of the day by the Table."

That is the only shadow that should concern you for the noon
alignment contains some of the great known human principles and
especially the one where clocks keep in sync with the daily rotational
cycle as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.

It will be the first real astronomical achievement of the 21st century
to restore the original principles based on the Equation of Time
correction.

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.

oriel3:
Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
Jupiter or any of the other planets.

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

This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete. Ditto guide
cameras.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

Hi Gerald,

Hope you are well?

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

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.

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

--

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.

Davoud wrote:
oriel3:

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


AustinMN:

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


This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete.

Damn ... do you know how much my AP1200GTO cost me?!

Ditto guide
cameras.

Hehehehe, does this mean perfect "guiding" by default. We get to save on
the batteries to!

Anthony.


Davoud

On May 21, 5:42 pm, Davoud wrote:
oriel3:

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

AustinMN:

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

This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete. Ditto guide
cameras.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

The introduction of astrological thinking in heliocentric principles
occured through Flamsteed and especially the adoption of the celestial
sphere/constellational framework for the convenience of observing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension

You,Pete and Austin here are ,unknown to yourselves,are just
astrologers with telescopes and all working off that constellational
sphere you project into the celestial arena.There is no continuity
between pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomies in the way you
consider apparent or actual motions ,an unfortunate example being Pete
here.

Those expensive Equatorial mounts are a symptom of an underlying
problem that began with a horrible and destructive correlation made
in the late 17th century -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed 1676

That was the first time somebody tried to justify the axial and
orbital motions of the Earth using a clock allied to celestial
sphere geometry,it gives you your observational convenience and
equatorial mounts but destroys everything else .

You want your apparent motion of planets pasted to celestial sphere
geometry and the sidereal time system to boot and you should be
delighted that it exists as the dominant system today,nobody to object
and all wrapped up in the name of 'astronomy'.It is even celebrated as
being a sign of intelligence but unfortunately underneath are the
minds of astrologers and this is reflected in this thread and what it
proposes.

Everybody has intutive intelligence but the catch is that only those
with intutive intelligence will properly understand how it differs
from minds that do not grasp things instantly or rather those who try
to build things by adding one fact on top of another.Newton actually
thought that Flamsteed correlation between axial rotation and
constellational geometry was a fact but Flamsteed's foundations are
actually bogus,an idiosyncratic attempt to to determine terrestrial
longitudes using an astrological framework.Newton lacked the intutive
intelligence to grasp the physical considerations involved in making
correlations between clocks,terrestrial longitudes and the daily cycle
hence we now inherit this contemporary situation where most are now
unapologetic astrologers with a bent for magnification.

Perhaps giving Pascal the last word on this matter will provide a
common ground that does not exist at present,again,the intutive will
understand it but those who are mathematical/astrological will not -

" 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























..

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

On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud wrote:
oriel3:

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

AustinMN:

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

This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete. Ditto guide
cameras.

Davoud

You *almost* got me to baptize my screen with diet Coke.

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

oriel3:
Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
Jupiter or any of the other planets.

AustinMN:

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

Davoud wrote:
This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete.

Anthony Ayiomamitis:
Damn ... do you know how much my AP1200GTO cost me?!

Yes, I have some idea. That's why I don't have one :--(

But none of that matters now. Please send me your AP1200GTO immediately
so that I may arrange to, ahem, re-allocate it in an environmentally
friendly way.

Davoud

P.S. Unlike you, I use a killfile. It's not bursting with names, but
oriel3 has a place of honor beside Dr. Min and Rich A.

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

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