A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Telling the truth about the term 'planet'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 30th 16, 01:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:10:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Gerald is still unable to say why he thinks that quote from Newton is
intetesting. Gerald agreed thst the planets always go around the sun in the
same direction, and that we see spparent retrograde motion from earth, which is
exsctly what Newton said. He was quite right.


Well, I've been trying to figure it out, reading between the lines.

But he has, in some of his posts, made specific criticisms of that Newton
quote. One is that an observer on the Sun is clearly imaginary. That's true,
such an observer would have hot feet!

Why this matters, of course, is mysterious.

John Savard


Even with good foot protection it would be a bit difficult to see the
planets with all the light from underfoot.


  #12  
Old April 30th 16, 03:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:10:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Gerald is still unable to say why he thinks that quote from Newton is
intetesting. Gerald agreed thst the planets always go around the sun in the
same direction, and that we see spparent retrograde motion from earth, which is
exsctly what Newton said. He was quite right.


Well, I've been trying to figure it out, reading between the lines.

But he has, in some of his posts, made specific criticisms of that Newton
quote. One is that an observer on the Sun is clearly imaginary. That's true,
such an observer would have hot feet!

Why this matters, of course, is mysterious.

John Savard


Gerald simply does not have the gift of perspective. The rest of us understand that that an imaginary observer on the surface of the Sun would never see any retrogrades, but Gerald does not. It is no surprise that he gets it wrong, over and over again. Retrogrades from the earth, but none from the Sun. So simple, but well beyond his grasp. Gerald will BEVER understand this simple concept.

Perhaps his daughters should explain it to him...
  #13  
Old April 30th 16, 06:39 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:49:24 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your
definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing
number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in 1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical
details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the
moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with
the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper
perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless
celestial sphere practitioners -

"Yet (these motions) differ in many ways (from the daily rotation or
first motion). In the first place, they do not swing around the same
poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through the zodiac.
Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in their orbits,
since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes slow, at other times
faster in their course. Moreover, we see the other five planets also
retrograde at times, and stationary at either end (of the regression)..
And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they
wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to
the north; that is why they are called "planets" (wanderers).
Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to
be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said
to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by
perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the
distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers
viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how
they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their
wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us about Copernicus's observations of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto only one of which is visible to the naked eye and that
with difficulty.


The term 'planet' defines itself as it means 'wanderer' and none of you,
to my knowledge, are capable of handling the wandering motions and what
they represent in terms of relative speeds between the Earth and the outer
planets/wanderers -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The middle Eastern thugs blow up ancient monuments to make way for their
contemporary convictions so this is exactly what happened in an attempt
to destroy the original approach to 'planets' arising from another bomb
going off in astronomy in Newton's approach to the wandering motions -

Stick to the point.

"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

Explain carefully how this statement is wrong.



It is a deficiency in your reasoning process resulting in an artificial structured view. The planets define themselves as 'wanderers' as seen by the geocentric astronomers when thy thought everything moved around the stationary Earth but it is an illusion once the relative speeds of the Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun takes over -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

I could show you that time lapse footage a million times and back it up with the comments of Galileo, Kepler or whoever, any observer with the slightest trace of intellectual courage would tell you the slower moving planets are falling behind in view as they appear to go backwards temporarily as the faster Earth overtakes them but it is all done from a moving Earth.

Just goes to show the house of cards 'relativity' is insofar as Newton conjured up absolute/relative space and motion based on his careless view of the observed motions just as his followers can't bear to look at his absolute/relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.






You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.



The ancients couldn't see Uranus either but it too goes retrograde as the Earth overtakes it -

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

The people who make up the empiricist IAU vehicle have not made it to adulthood in astronomical matters so they introduced a meaningless problem about planetary size in order to distract from what actually defines a planet whether it goes retrograde or not and there are no images of the Earth overtaking Neptune but who needs affirmation that it does and that is the whole point.




When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.


Empiricists look like kids running amok with astronomical language and although words like retrograde, conjunctions,elongations, ect should be left behind in the 21st century as people take it for granted that observations seen from a moving Earth create the perspective of our position and motion through space, your kind never made the transition from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and went backwards in celestial sphere notions and a clockwork solar system.




If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.

  #14  
Old April 30th 16, 08:06 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:49:24 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your
definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing
number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in
1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical
details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the
moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with
the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper
perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless
celestial sphere practitioners -

"Yet (these motions) differ in many ways (from the daily rotation or
first motion). In the first place, they do not swing around the same
poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through the zodiac.
Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in their orbits,
since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes slow, at other times
faster in their course. Moreover, we see the other five planets also
retrograde at times, and stationary at either end (of the regression).
And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they
wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to
the north; that is why they are called "planets" (wanderers).
Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to
be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said
to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by
perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the
distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers
viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how
they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their
wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us about Copernicus's observations of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto only one of which is visible to the naked eye and that
with difficulty.


The term 'planet' defines itself as it means 'wanderer' and none of you,
to my knowledge, are capable of handling the wandering motions and what
they represent in terms of relative speeds between the Earth and the outer
planets/wanderers -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The middle Eastern thugs blow up ancient monuments to make way for their
contemporary convictions so this is exactly what happened in an attempt
to destroy the original approach to 'planets' arising from another bomb
going off in astronomy in Newton's approach to the wandering motions -

Stick to the point.

"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

Explain carefully how this statement is wrong.



You haven't answered the question because it's hard to spot what's wrong in
a correct answer.

It is a deficiency in your reasoning process resulting in an artificial
structured view. The planets define themselves as 'wanderers' as seen by
the geocentric astronomers when thy thought everything moved around the
stationary Earth but it is an illusion once the relative speeds of the
Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun takes over -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

I could show you that time lapse footage a million times and back it up
with the comments of Galileo, Kepler or whoever, any observer with the
slightest trace of intellectual courage would tell you the slower moving
planets are falling behind in view as they appear to go backwards
temporarily as the faster Earth overtakes them but it is all done from a moving Earth.


You have shown that time lapse footage. Most of the viewers have watched
conjunctions for themselves and understand exactly what happens.

You haven't ever commented on the same view from a viewpoint stationary
with respect to the Sun.

This is one.


http://youtu.be/8fdrF9-g8us

This shows the smell conjunction. Point to the retrogrades.



Just goes to show the house of cards 'relativity' is insofar as Newton
conjured up absolute/relative space and motion based on his careless view
of the observed motions just as his followers can't bear to look at his
absolute/relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.


A house of cards can be easily toppled. Newton's laws are more like a
pyramid.





You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.



The ancients couldn't see Uranus either but it too goes retrograde as the
Earth overtakes it -

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

The people who make up the empiricist IAU vehicle have not made it to
adulthood in astronomical matters so they introduced a meaningless
problem about planetary size in order to distract from what actually
defines a planet whether it goes retrograde or not and there are no
images of the Earth overtaking Neptune but who needs affirmation that it
does and that is the whole point.




When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.


Empiricists look like kids running amok with astronomical language and
although words like retrograde, conjunctions,elongations, ect should be
left behind in the 21st century as people take it for granted that
observations seen from a moving Earth create the perspective of our
position and motion through space, your kind never made the transition
from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and went backwards in celestial
sphere notions and a clockwork solar system.




If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.


If you don't have a minimum size for a planet every meteoroid is a planet
and the word takes on a completely different meaning.



  #15  
Old April 30th 16, 08:10 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:49:24 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:42:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta were all planets (because they match your
definition of a wandering yoke) for 40 years, before the increasing
number of discoveries convinced astronomers to downgrade them all in
1845 to asteroids.


It can be difficult to watch people who have no sense of the technical
details which distinguished the observed motions of the planets from the
moon and the Sun, technical details that stretch back to antiquity with
the full statement from Copernicus adequately putting planets in proper
perspective and nothing to do with size or composition by today's hapless
celestial sphere practitioners -

"Yet (these motions) differ in many ways (from the daily rotation or
first motion). In the first place, they do not swing around the same
poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through the zodiac.
Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in their orbits,
since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes slow, at other times
faster in their course. Moreover, we see the other five planets also
retrograde at times, and stationary at either end (of the regression).
And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they
wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to
the north; that is why they are called "planets" (wanderers).
Furthermore, they are at times nearer to the earth, when they are said to
be in perigee; at other times they are farther away, when they are said
to be in apogee." Copernicus

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html


Considering the wandering nature of the planets are partitioned by
perspective seen from a moving Earth, to see people butcher the
distinctions when it is now fairly easy to see how the older astronomers
viewed these things, how the heliocentric astronomers changed it and how
they now need to be changed again.

No point in explaining to thugs how the outer and inner planets and their
wandering motions are distinguished from a moving Earth.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us about Copernicus's observations of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto only one of which is visible to the naked eye and that
with difficulty.


The term 'planet' defines itself as it means 'wanderer' and none of you,
to my knowledge, are capable of handling the wandering motions and what
they represent in terms of relative speeds between the Earth and the outer
planets/wanderers -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The middle Eastern thugs blow up ancient monuments to make way for their
contemporary convictions so this is exactly what happened in an attempt
to destroy the original approach to 'planets' arising from another bomb
going off in astronomy in Newton's approach to the wandering motions -

Stick to the point.

"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

Explain carefully how this statement is wrong.



You haven't answered the question because it's hard to spot what's wrong in
a correct answer.

It is a deficiency in your reasoning process resulting in an artificial
structured view. The planets define themselves as 'wanderers' as seen by
the geocentric astronomers when thy thought everything moved around the
stationary Earth but it is an illusion once the relative speeds of the
Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun takes over -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

I could show you that time lapse footage a million times and back it up
with the comments of Galileo, Kepler or whoever, any observer with the
slightest trace of intellectual courage would tell you the slower moving
planets are falling behind in view as they appear to go backwards
temporarily as the faster Earth overtakes them but it is all done from a moving Earth.


You have shown that time lapse footage. Most of the viewers have watched
conjunctions for themselves and understand exactly what happens.

You haven't ever commented on the same view from a viewpoint stationary
with respect to the Sun.

This is one.


http://youtu.be/8fdrF9-g8us

This shows the smell conjunction. Point to the retrogrades.



Just goes to show the house of cards 'relativity' is insofar as Newton
conjured up absolute/relative space and motion based on his careless view
of the observed motions just as his followers can't bear to look at his
absolute/relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.


A house of cards can be easily toppled. Newton's laws are more like a
pyramid.





You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.



The ancients couldn't see Uranus either but it too goes retrograde as the
Earth overtakes it -

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

The people who make up the empiricist IAU vehicle have not made it to
adulthood in astronomical matters so they introduced a meaningless
problem about planetary size in order to distract from what actually
defines a planet whether it goes retrograde or not and there are no
images of the Earth overtaking Neptune but who needs affirmation that it
does and that is the whole point.




When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.


Empiricists look like kids running amok with astronomical language and
although words like retrograde, conjunctions,elongations, ect should be
left behind in the 21st century as people take it for granted that
observations seen from a moving Earth create the perspective of our
position and motion through space, your kind never made the transition
from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and went backwards in celestial
sphere notions and a clockwork solar system.




If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.


If you don't have a minimum size for a planet every meteoroid is a planet
and the word takes on a completely different meaning.





Smell conjunction? That's what happens when you type same too fast on an
iPhone keyboard.


  #16  
Old April 30th 16, 10:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 8:10:10 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

You haven't answered the question because it's hard to spot what's wrong in
a correct answer.


There is no question to answer, the original heliocentric astronomers got it right when it came to the observed motions of the slower moving outer planets as the faster moving Earth overtakes them thereby proving the Earth travels through space and around the Sun and not the other way around as the geocentric astronomers thought. The next step in the 21st century is probably using these so-called VR imaging techniques to help people visualize the observed planetary motions and putting them in context although I am perfectly content with the few time lapse images which exist presently which infers moving planets around a central star -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

There is no such thing as true and apparent motions or absolute/relative space and motion into which Isaac tried to shove his backward notion of the observed motions into, there are just the normal judgments people use every day when they exercise relative motions when they walk or drive. The analogy of a car on a roundabout watching slower moving cars fall behind in view is a fair example of this as it applies to planetary motions and what the ancients seen as 'wandering'.







It is a deficiency in your reasoning process resulting in an artificial
structured view. The planets define themselves as 'wanderers' as seen by
the geocentric astronomers when thy thought everything moved around the
stationary Earth but it is an illusion once the relative speeds of the
Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun takes over -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

I could show you that time lapse footage a million times and back it up
with the comments of Galileo, Kepler or whoever, any observer with the
slightest trace of intellectual courage would tell you the slower moving
planets are falling behind in view as they appear to go backwards
temporarily as the faster Earth overtakes them but it is all done from a moving Earth.


You have shown that time lapse footage. Most of the viewers have watched
conjunctions for themselves and understand exactly what happens.

You haven't ever commented on the same view from a viewpoint stationary
with respect to the Sun.

This is one.


http://youtu.be/8fdrF9-g8us

This shows the smell conjunction. Point to the retrogrades.



No doubt it is some celestial sphere monstrosity which misses the whole point even when imaging tools display a wonderful view of the observed motions of the planets. The original heliocentric astronomers would have understood the need to partition the observed behavior of the outer planets from the inner planets but as telescopes only started to emerge around the time of Galileo and sequential imaging photography only lately, the present generation generally do quite well with Venus with the motion of Mercury implied in the same type of heliocentric perspective -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Venus2.svg.png

Unlike the looping motions of the outer planets which are accounted for by the faster moving Earth, the loop of Venus and Mercury has very little to so with relative speeds between our planet and them but simply a grandstand view of the inner planets as they make a complete circuit of the Sun.

The loop of the outer planets Jupiter and Saturn look like this -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112...loop_tezel.jpg

So planets are called 'wanders' for good reason but their wandering motions are account for in two different ways whereas the original heliocentric astronomers only used one way due to a technical issue in the transition from geocentric to heliocentric astronomer, in other words, they missed out on an observation which is now easily resolved at this time.

Newton is not worth my time but his followers sure are convinced he is right and they are generally found standing in front of students hence the problem.





Just goes to show the house of cards 'relativity' is insofar as Newton
conjured up absolute/relative space and motion based on his careless view
of the observed motions just as his followers can't bear to look at his
absolute/relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.


A house of cards can be easily toppled. Newton's laws are more like a
pyramid.





You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.



The ancients couldn't see Uranus either but it too goes retrograde as the
Earth overtakes it -

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

The people who make up the empiricist IAU vehicle have not made it to
adulthood in astronomical matters so they introduced a meaningless
problem about planetary size in order to distract from what actually
defines a planet whether it goes retrograde or not and there are no
images of the Earth overtaking Neptune but who needs affirmation that it
does and that is the whole point.




When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.


Empiricists look like kids running amok with astronomical language and
although words like retrograde, conjunctions,elongations, ect should be
left behind in the 21st century as people take it for granted that
observations seen from a moving Earth create the perspective of our
position and motion through space, your kind never made the transition
from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and went backwards in celestial
sphere notions and a clockwork solar system.




If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.


If you don't have a minimum size for a planet every meteoroid is a planet
and the word takes on a completely different meaning.

  #17  
Old April 30th 16, 03:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

oriel36 wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 8:10:10 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

You haven't answered the question because it's hard to spot what's wrong in
a correct answer.


There is no question to answer, the original heliocentric astronomers got
it right when it came to the observed motions of the slower moving outer
planets as the faster moving Earth overtakes them thereby proving the
Earth travels through space and around the Sun and not the other way
around as the geocentric astronomers thought. The next step in the 21st
century is probably using these so-called VR imaging techniques to help
people visualize the observed planetary motions and putting them in
context although I am perfectly content with the few time lapse images
which exist presently which infers moving planets around a central star -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

There is no such thing as true and apparent motions or absolute/relative
space and motion into which Isaac tried to shove his backward notion of
the observed motions into, there are just the normal judgments people use
every day when they exercise relative motions when they walk or drive.
The analogy of a car on a roundabout watching slower moving cars fall
behind in view is a fair example of this as it applies to planetary
motions and what the ancients seen as 'wandering'.







It is a deficiency in your reasoning process resulting in an artificial
structured view. The planets define themselves as 'wanderers' as seen by
the geocentric astronomers when thy thought everything moved around the
stationary Earth but it is an illusion once the relative speeds of the
Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun takes over -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

I could show you that time lapse footage a million times and back it up
with the comments of Galileo, Kepler or whoever, any observer with the
slightest trace of intellectual courage would tell you the slower moving
planets are falling behind in view as they appear to go backwards
temporarily as the faster Earth overtakes them but it is all done from a moving Earth.


You have shown that time lapse footage. Most of the viewers have watched
conjunctions for themselves and understand exactly what happens.

You haven't ever commented on the same view from a viewpoint stationary
with respect to the Sun.

This is one.


http://youtu.be/8fdrF9-g8us

This shows the smell conjunction. Point to the retrogrades.



No doubt it is some celestial sphere monstrosity which misses the whole
point even when imaging tools display a wonderful view of the observed
motions of the planets.


No it's a sun centred view of exactly the same conjunction.

I went to a great deal of time and trouble making this for you. I have
looked at every video you've posted. Any polite person would respect the
trouble I went to for your personal education and look carefully at the
video.





The original heliocentric astronomers would have understood the need to
partition the observed behavior of the outer planets from the inner
planets but as telescopes only started to emerge around the time of
Galileo and sequential imaging photography only lately, the present
generation generally do quite well with Venus with the motion of Mercury
implied in the same type of heliocentric perspective -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Venus2.svg.png

Unlike the looping motions of the outer planets which are accounted for
by the faster moving Earth, the loop of Venus and Mercury has very little
to so with relative speeds between our planet and them but simply a
grandstand view of the inner planets as they make a complete circuit of the Sun.

The loop of the outer planets Jupiter and Saturn look like this -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112...loop_tezel.jpg

So planets are called 'wanders' for good reason but their wandering
motions are account for in two different ways whereas the original
heliocentric astronomers only used one way due to a technical issue in
the transition from geocentric to heliocentric astronomer, in other
words, they missed out on an observation which is now easily resolved at this time.

Newton is not worth my time but his followers sure are convinced he is
right and they are generally found standing in front of students hence the problem.





Just goes to show the house of cards 'relativity' is insofar as Newton
conjured up absolute/relative space and motion based on his careless view
of the observed motions just as his followers can't bear to look at his
absolute/relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.


A house of cards can be easily toppled. Newton's laws are more like a
pyramid.





You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.



The ancients couldn't see Uranus either but it too goes retrograde as the
Earth overtakes it -

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

The people who make up the empiricist IAU vehicle have not made it to
adulthood in astronomical matters so they introduced a meaningless
problem about planetary size in order to distract from what actually
defines a planet whether it goes retrograde or not and there are no
images of the Earth overtaking Neptune but who needs affirmation that it
does and that is the whole point.




When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.


Empiricists look like kids running amok with astronomical language and
although words like retrograde, conjunctions,elongations, ect should be
left behind in the 21st century as people take it for granted that
observations seen from a moving Earth create the perspective of our
position and motion through space, your kind never made the transition
from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and went backwards in celestial
sphere notions and a clockwork solar system.




If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.

If you don't have a minimum size for a planet every meteoroid is a planet
and the word takes on a completely different meaning.





  #18  
Old April 30th 16, 07:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Telling the truth about the term 'planet'

I do not know how much of a role the virtual reality equipment will play in teaching astronomical principles but the prospects look very bright once the celestial sphere software is sidelined and programmers start to take a look at orbital motions and the perspectives they generate. Something like watching our approach to Jupiter and Saturn as we swing by them in our faster motion in an inner circuit is ideal for this VR equipment as a tool to look out at the real planets and how they move around the Sun.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

If magnification guys want to remain with experimental theorists living out the good old days chanting meaningless voodoo then so be it but their natural home is putting perspectives to their observations and the new tools are ideal for this purpose.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where the term 'planet' comes from oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 February 6th 14 12:01 PM
Telling it like it is ... Hägar Misc 0 January 31st 14 01:11 AM
Ted Nugent, telling like it really is ... Hägar Misc 4 October 24th 13 01:37 PM
Blair BabyBombers Indict 2 For Telling Truth Warhol Misc 0 December 4th 05 03:35 AM
Telling Ages???? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 55 March 18th 05 05:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.