A higher standard

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 12:21:33 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:36:01 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:24:07 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

You have no sense in what has just been accomplished using a
modification of the framework which discerns what a planet is from its
observed motions. The outer planets have a distinct motion as the Earth
overtakes them and they temporarily fall behind in view including Uranus -

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

The inner planets 'wander' for a different reason as they move in one
direction against the background stars and then in the opposite
direction as they swing in front of the central stationary Sun. The
Earth's orbital input is mostly restricted to setting the Sun up as a
central reference by using the annual disappearance of stars lying
close to the orbital plane behind the glare of the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ


Copernicus and Kepler worked with the geocentric framework where the
planets wandered against the background stars whereas the Sun moved
directly through the same framework, the wider population knows this
orbital feature as birth signs.

"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]. Copernicus

A mindless thug concerned about death is not going to enjoy what has
been done and I am not going to throw good information after worthless
concerns that are and always will be outside the tradition of astronomy.

Your little pea-sized brain is so f'd up that it can never recover.

You just don't have a clue, not a single clue.

Another empirical victim raised on theoretical nonsense with the same
defensive mechanism which abhors the easy to understand principles which
link the appearance of the Sun followed by the stars within each 24 hours
with one rotation,or in this case, accounts for the Earth's annual motion
using the line-of-sight observation as the stars move behind the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

You doubted the images of Venus and the phases which represent its
orbital position around the Sun as seen from a moving Earth even though any
astrophotographer worthy of the name would have known that as Venus
overtakes the slower moving Earth it goes from a twilight planet to a dawn planet -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Planets have always been loved by virtue that they move in a certain way
,when Copernicus accounted for the observed behavior of the outer planets
using relative speeds between the Earth and those planets, he opened up a
vista never realized before. Accounting for the motion of the inner
planets from a moving Earth is new and an addition to the original
emergence of the heliocentric system .

It is here to stay so call me all the names you will, coming from a
person who can't correlate one rotation with one 24 hour day your
disruptive noise means next to nothing.




Just a few of Oriel's planets.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...rSystem-en.png

Raising the standard is also an appeal to common sense, both the geocentric and the original heliocentric astronomers worked off a common framework where the notion of planets was never questioned until a bunch of childish theorists recently decided to isolate what a planet is outside the astronomical heritage.

The empirical community who created the 'definition' mess are both extremists and fundamentalists and devoid of the tradition which accounted for the observed motions of the outer planets as they temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Earth overtakes them (retrograde motion) -

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

Mindless thugs defend their own agenda which misses the point of the wandering motions of the planets and why the Earth's orbital motion is crucial for discerning their motions around the Sun using two separate perspectives . It is sickening that the empiricists cling to a false view of planets as they appeared to the geocentric and the original heliocentric astronomers who realized what was behind the motion of the outer planets but not the inner planets .

"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

That statement is not a low standard, it is no standard whatsoever.

oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 12:21:33 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:36:01 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:24:07 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

You have no sense in what has just been accomplished using a
modification of the framework which discerns what a planet is from its
observed motions. The outer planets have a distinct motion as the Earth
overtakes them and they temporarily fall behind in view including Uranus -

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

The inner planets 'wander' for a different reason as they move in one
direction against the background stars and then in the opposite
direction as they swing in front of the central stationary Sun. The
Earth's orbital input is mostly restricted to setting the Sun up as a
central reference by using the annual disappearance of stars lying
close to the orbital plane behind the glare of the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ


Copernicus and Kepler worked with the geocentric framework where the
planets wandered against the background stars whereas the Sun moved
directly through the same framework, the wider population knows this
orbital feature as birth signs.

"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]. Copernicus

A mindless thug concerned about death is not going to enjoy what has
been done and I am not going to throw good information after worthless
concerns that are and always will be outside the tradition of astronomy.

Your little pea-sized brain is so f'd up that it can never recover.

You just don't have a clue, not a single clue.

Another empirical victim raised on theoretical nonsense with the same
defensive mechanism which abhors the easy to understand principles which
link the appearance of the Sun followed by the stars within each 24 hours
with one rotation,or in this case, accounts for the Earth's annual motion
using the line-of-sight observation as the stars move behind the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

You doubted the images of Venus and the phases which represent its
orbital position around the Sun as seen from a moving Earth even though any
astrophotographer worthy of the name would have known that as Venus
overtakes the slower moving Earth it goes from a twilight planet to a dawn planet -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Planets have always been loved by virtue that they move in a certain way
,when Copernicus accounted for the observed behavior of the outer planets
using relative speeds between the Earth and those planets, he opened up a
vista never realized before. Accounting for the motion of the inner
planets from a moving Earth is new and an addition to the original
emergence of the heliocentric system .

It is here to stay so call me all the names you will, coming from a
person who can't correlate one rotation with one 24 hour day your
disruptive noise means next to nothing.




Just a few of Oriel's planets.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...rSystem-en.png

Raising the standard is also an appeal to common sense, both the
geocentric and the original heliocentric astronomers worked off a common
framework where the notion of planets was never questioned until a bunch
of childish theorists recently decided to isolate what a planet is
outside the astronomical heritage.

The empirical community who created the 'definition' mess are both
extremists and fundamentalists and devoid of the tradition which
accounted for the observed motions of the outer planets as they
temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Earth overtakes them (retrograde motion) -

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

Mindless thugs defend their own agenda which misses the point of the
wandering motions of the planets and why the Earth's orbital motion is
crucial for discerning their motions around the Sun using two separate
perspectives . It is sickening that the empiricists cling to a false view
of planets as they appeared to the geocentric and the original
heliocentric astronomers who realized what was behind the motion of the
outer planets but not the inner planets .

"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

That statement is not a low standard, it is no standard whatsoever.







And here's wha that same period looks like with reference to the sun. See
any retrogrades. From the sun there aren't any.


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

People are not thugs and can exercise clearing reasoning when needed,in this case the actual observed motions of the slower moving outer planets as they are overtaken by the Earth causes them to temporarily drop behind in view. The upshot of accounting for the motions of the outer planets changed the scheme of the solar system from the geocentric perspectives which assigned huge looping motions for the outer planets around a stationary and central Earth-

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


At once the contemporary reader can see what the old geocentric astronomers were looking at while making the transition to the heliocentric view where the Earth's own orbital motion and the relative speeds and positions of Jupiter and Saturn in the time lapse creates the enjoyable perspective where all planets travel through space.

The inner planets require a separate treatment but every bit as delightful with the noted modifications which show Venus and Mercury move around the Sun with all the attendant effects such as phases ,size increase and so on.

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Six months after the completed sequence of images were assembled from July 2010 to January 2012 there was that rare event where Venus overtakes the Earth and is seen to move from the left side of the Sun to the right whereas most times it transitions from a planet seen at twilight to one seen a dawn -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4

The narrative existed apart from one crucial observation in how to account for the Earth's own orbital motion when looking at the inner planets and that is where the annual motion of the stars comes into play and diverges completely from the original heliocentric framework which utilized a perspective using the Sun's motion through the Zodiac.

The split perspectives between inner and outer planets will exist whether they are acknowledged or not but both require the notion of the Earth acting as a natural spacecraft. It is this delightful analogy which brings a society who have already traveled into space into an era where purpose of traveling into space will again return .

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:

The inner planets require a separate treatment but every bit as delightful
with the noted modifications which show Venus and Mercury move around the Sun
with all the attendant effects such as phases ,size increase and so on.

Any idea, how Oriel would explain retrogrades of Daedalus or Icarus?

Mikko

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:36:45 PM UTC, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
oriel36 wrote:

The inner planets require a separate treatment but every bit as delightful
with the noted modifications which show Venus and Mercury move around the Sun
with all the attendant effects such as phases ,size increase and so on.

Any idea, how Oriel would explain retrogrades of Daedalus or Icarus?

Mikko

What I do is explain the differences in retrogrades which separate the inner and outer planets as seen from a moving Earth as the designation 'planet' is a wanderer against the background field of stars. The geocentric astronomers distinguished the planets from the direct motion of the Sun through the Zodiac and this was retained by the original heliocentric astronomers who basically switched the motion of the Sun between Venus and Mars with the Earth's orbital motion.

The wandering motion of the outer planets is fairly straightforward as they temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Earth, in an inner orbital circuit overtakes them -

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

Inner planetary retrogrades are an entirely different matter and perspective but no less easy and enjoyable in the way they are understood. The beginning and end of inner retrogrades are when Venus and Mercury reach their widest point in their circuit as seen from a moving Earth.

Watch as Mercury moves in one direction against the background stars and then in the other direction as it travels out from behind the central Sun before swinging back in. The Earth's orbital motion supplies the central Sun as a reference by accounting for its own motion around the Sun by the annual motion of the stars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

I appreciate the obstacle faced by the original heliocentric astronomers in not making the distinction, partly because they lacked telescopes to see the phases of Venus and partly from the original geocentric framework which defined planets by their motions as opposed to the motion of the Sun and moon.


It is just a normal Saturday afternoon here with nobody to convince as the images and graphics tell the story themselves without any help from me. It may happen that a person may stray into the forum who is aware they have a talent for discerning perspectives the way the old astronomers once did but so far I haven't encountered even one person who can affirm the outer planetary retrogrades let alone the distinction that exists with the inner retrograde resolutions. There is plenty of room for disappointment but none for depression as the former comes from the heart while the latter is merely a lack of feeling.

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:36:45 PM UTC, Mikko wrote:
Any idea, how Oriel would explain retrogrades of Daedalus or Icarus?

What I do is explain the differences in retrogrades which separate the inner
and outer planets as seen from a moving Earth as the designation 'planet' is
...
retrograde resolutions. There is plenty of room for disappointment but none
for depression as the former comes from the heart while the latter is merely
a lack of feeling.

I know oriel's policy is to never answer questions, so no
disappointment. I also understand the unlikelihood that oriel would ever
tell whether he considers Daedalus and Icarus as inner or outer. But we
are free so speculate what is the answer that is never told.

Mikko

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 1:41:45 PM UTC, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
oriel36 wrote:

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:36:45 PM UTC, Mikko wrote:
Any idea, how Oriel would explain retrogrades of Daedalus or Icarus?

What I do is explain the differences in retrogrades which separate the inner
and outer planets as seen from a moving Earth as the designation 'planet' is
...
retrograde resolutions. There is plenty of room for disappointment but none
for depression as the former comes from the heart while the latter is merely
a lack of feeling.

I know oriel's policy is to never answer questions, so no
disappointment. I also understand the unlikelihood that oriel would ever
tell whether he considers Daedalus and Icarus as inner or outer. But we
are free so speculate what is the answer that is never told.

Mikko


We are supposed to be the space age people with the know-how to travel beyond the surface of the planet and explore our local solar system neighborhood. The technological difficulties of moving faster to see more and get more people out there are always going to be around whereas there is absolutely nothing difficult about the reasoning which treats the Earth like a huge natural spacecraft and take notice of the different perspectives as it travels around the Sun.

From the surface of that moving Earth the stars become lost behind the glare of the central Sun as the Earth moves around the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

From the surface of the planet, the annual disappearance of the stars looks like this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

It is possible to see Mercury come out from behind the central Sun, move to its widest point as seen from Earth while moving in the opposite direction of the background stars . It then turns back in front of the Sun and between our central star and the Earth while moving in the direction of the background stars.

The original heliocentric astronomers didn't take this perspective into account insofar as they worked off the direct motion of the Sun through the Zodiac between Venus and Mars -

" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Kepler

It is not just wrong to try and re-define a planet because it is convenient to try and bury its designation by its motion as opposed to the Sun and moon, it is quite subversive and contrary to the spirit of astronomy and its tradition.

Most people already put the long term observations of Venus into delightful perspective through its phases and size variations in its circular journey around the Sun. What hasn't been done up to now is account for the orbital inputs of the Earth into that picture which include the fact that both Venus and Mercury do wander against the background stars but for different reasons than the outer planets.

On way or another it is a celebration of modern imaging and graphics and that is how I approach the whole matter.