Extrasolar transit of TrEs-4

Hello group;
I updated my web site with August 17 extrasolar transit of newly
discovered planet TrEs-4. This is my best result so far and the shape of
the transit is quite definite. This planet is 1.7 times larger than
Jupiter and has an average density only of 0.2 g/cm^3. The depth of the
transit was of 0.01 manitudes and the precision reached is +- 0.0014
magnitudes (at the beginning, and 0.002 magnitudes at the end, because the
lower altitude). Here is the direct link to the transit:
http://www.danielegasparri.com/eng/t...lar/tres-4.htm .
Clear skies!



--
Daniele Gasparri
Perugia (Italy)
www.danielegasparri.com

On Aug 27, 4:41 pm, "Daniele Gasparri"
wrote:
Hello group;
I updated my web site with August 17 extrasolar transit of newly
discovered planet TrEs-4. This is my best result so far and the shape of
the transit is quite definite. This planet is 1.7 times larger than
Jupiter and has an average density only of 0.2 g/cm^3. The depth of the
transit was of 0.01 manitudes and the precision reached is +- 0.0014
magnitudes (at the beginning, and 0.002 magnitudes at the end, because the
lower altitude). Here is the direct link to the transit:http://www.danielegasparri.com/eng/t...lar/tres-4.htm.
Clear skies!

--
Daniele Gasparri
Perugia (Italy)www.danielegasparri.com

A solar system transit is the most immediate experience of Copernican
reasoning as it represents the point where a planet ,in an inner
orbital circuit , overtakes the slower moving Earth with the central
Sun in the background -

http://www.kwastronomy.com/images/Ve...sit-3-1-2c.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgvwj...elated&search=

Copernicus and Kepler did not have telescopes to admire these
brilliant heliocentric events and they relied on the faster Earth
overtaking the slower moving outer planets to infer the Earth's
orbital motion between Venus and Mars around the central star -

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

The next event in 2012 should be promoted as a once in a lifetime
chance to appreciate Copernican reasoning directly,instead it will
diluted to an astrological theme of Venus 'crosses the face of the
Sun" and nothing else.

oriel36 wrote:

Copernicus and Kepler did not have telescopes to admire these
brilliant heliocentric events and they relied on the faster Earth
overtaking the slower moving outer planets to infer the Earth's
orbital motion between Venus and Mars around the central star -

Hi, there, and just to clarify a point as to observational
techniques that could be of interest to s.a.a.: Kepler indeed
based his theories of planetary motion on the naked eye
observations of Tycho Brahe. If I'm correct, he published
his first formulations around 1609, the same year that the
telescope was coming into astronomical use. Later on, of
course, Kepler _did_ use telescopes, and if I'm correct
designed a Keplerian type of refractor.

Thus, if I understand correctly, it is quite right to say
that Kepler formulated his theories before the telescope
came into astronomical use and he became one of its users
and designers.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

On Aug 30, 1:12 am, Margo Schulter wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Copernicus and Kepler did not have telescopes to admire these
brilliant heliocentric events and they relied on the faster Earth
overtaking the slower moving outer planets to infer the Earth's
orbital motion between Venus and Mars around the central star -

Hi, there, and just to clarify a point as to observational
techniques that could be of interest to s.a.a.: Kepler indeed
based his theories of planetary motion on the naked eye
observations of Tycho Brahe. If I'm correct, he published
his first formulations around 1609, the same year that the
telescope was coming into astronomical use. Later on, of
course, Kepler _did_ use telescopes, and if I'm correct
designed a Keplerian type of refractor.

Thus, if I understand correctly, it is quite right to say
that Kepler formulated his theories before the telescope
came into astronomical use and he became one of its users
and designers.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

You are learning from an astronomer rather than getting your
information about Kepler and his discoveries via the empirical cult
and specifically Newton's awful use of Keplerian
insights.Technically,if you wish to discover where Newton jumped the
tracks you listen intently to what Kepler has to say,then you look at
the technical mistake of Newton.

Do you clearly understand what is goin on in the diagram on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

Let me help you along -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler

Do you clearly and I mean clearly understand how retrogrades are
resolved using orbital comparisons and from there to the Keplerian
orbital refinement such as a less than circular orbit.

Do you clearly understand what is badly wrong with Newton's worthless
view of and resolution of retrogrades based on his misintepretation
of that diagram of page 86 -

" 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

Poor Isaac,thought if you replaced the Earth with the Sun at the
center of the diagram that retrogrades disappear or rather the poor
fools who followed Isaac in this careless belief.Perhaps there is a
severe reading disability in that you cannot read what Kepler is
saying -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler



Let me guess,you never seen the Panis Quadragesimalis of Kepler
before,a representation which plots the motion of Mars against the
stellar background and then compares those plotted positions for Mars
with the orbital cycles of the Earth.Of course,you are an astrologer
and paste planetary motion to celestial sphere geometry via the Ra/Dec
system so Newton could justify the old calendrically based
'predictive' system for planetary location.

oriel36 wrote:

You are learning from an astronomer rather than getting your
information about Kepler and his discoveries via the empirical cult
and specifically Newton's awful use of Keplerian
insights.Technically,if you wish to discover where Newton jumped the
tracks you listen intently to what Kepler has to say,then you look at
the technical mistake of Newton.

Hi, there, and I'd certainly regard it as common knowledge which I
learned as a child that Kepler based his formulations on the
observations of Tycho Brahe, sometimes regarded as one the last
outstanding astronomers of the pre-telescopic period.

Before getting to the diagram, which I'm still digesting (reading
the whole article, which I just downloaded will help), I should make
an important point about how astronomers can and do view
"magnification" in perspective, and without discounting the value
of naked eye observation.

Thus in 1612, Simon Marius viewed the Great Nebula in Andromeda
(now known as the Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, or NGC 224) with an
early telescope and soon published a description, saying that
its luminosity had a quality like light viewed through transparent
horn. (An interesting image -- I wonder what kind of horn.) His
discovery was cited as the first in a number of other publications
over the next 150 years or so at least in Europe.

However, in fact, Abd-al-Rahman al-Sufi in Persia had observed and
described this same "little cloud" and published his observation
in 964 -- so that Marius merely independently rediscovered with
the novel optical aid of the telescope what al-Sufi and others
had seen with the naked eye.

Thus while telescopes are a big topic on sci.astro.amateur, this
shouldn't mean that naked eye observing is discounted -- nor
reasoning, which for example in the 14th century led Nicholas
Oresme to suggest that it would be more elegant to posit a
diurnal rotation of the Earth than a revolution in the same
period of the whole cosmos, some two centuries before the
telescope came into astronomical use.

Do you clearly understand what is goin on in the diagram on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

It's a striking diagram, with the retrograde motions or whatever aptly
called "pretzel"-like in a caption.

Let me help you along -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler

Do you clearly and I mean clearly understand how retrogrades are
resolved using orbital comparisons and from there to the Keplerian
orbital refinement such as a less than circular orbit.

For clear understanding at this level, I'll need to study the whole
article carefully, which should be much worthwhile -- and I'll thank
you warmly for directing me to this source.

I'm not sure if I'd call an ellipse a "less than circular" orbit, only
a member of the set of elliptical orbits of which a circular one would
be a subset. All I know is that by introducing the hypothesis of the
ellipse, he simplified lots of complications that would arise with
circular orbits, geocentric or heliocentric.

Do you clearly understand what is badly wrong with Newton's worthless
view of and resolution of retrogrades based on his misintepretation
of that diagram of page 86 -

" 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

I'm not sure, it sounds to me like he's proposing the Sun as a good
frame of reference, since according to Kepler, if I recall correctly,
the sun is a focus of a planet's elliptical orbit.

Poor Isaac,thought if you replaced the Earth with the Sun at the
center of the diagram that retrogrades disappear or rather the poor
fools who followed Isaac in this careless belief.Perhaps there is a
severe reading disability in that you cannot read what Kepler is
saying -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler

Maybe this is a crude amateur astronomer's misunderstanding, but I'd
take Newton as saying that from the Sun's perspective or frame of
reference, the planets are revolving in their orbits in consistent
directions -- although from Earth's perspective, for example, another
planet may appear to "change course" in retrograde motion, which, of
course, was a reason for all of those epicycles of the Ptolemaic
model, which an elliptical and heliocentric model can nicely make
unnecessary.

Let me guess,you never seen the Panis Quadragesimalis of Kepler
before,a representation which plots the motion of Mars against the
stellar background and then compares those plotted positions for Mars
with the orbital cycles of the Earth.Of course,you are an astrologer
and paste planetary motion to celestial sphere geometry via the Ra/Dec
system so Newton could justify the old calendrically based
'predictive' system for planetary location.

Please let me distinguish between some of the questions and assumptions
you present here. It seems to me that some of this discussion is about
the most useful frame of reference to use for certain purpose, and part
about the definition of an "astronomer" or "astrologer."

Thank you for presenting your ideas in a friendly dialogue, and I'll try
to do the same. Obviously the more I learn about Solar System dynamics,
the better an astronomer I'll be. And if the dialogue helps us both to
formulate better our concepts of "astronomy" or "astrology," then we
may both benefit.

I understand judicial astrology as the study of the stars and planets
for the purpose of assessing a person's character based largely on the
configuration of the heavens at the time of the person's birth, or of
assessing the "aspects" of that person's situation (or possibly of
some collectivity such as a given organization or nation or even the
general terrestrial scene) based on the configuration obtaining at
a given point or time, or over a given period of time.

I understand astronomy to be a branch of natural philosophy or
science concerned with what William Herschel has well called "the
construction of the heavens," to be ascertained both through
observation and through the application of reason.

When I use RA/Dec, I am well aware that this is merely a mathematical
model of convenience, and that in reality the universe is not a
geocentric sphere. If a telescope were located on the Moon, I might
use a lunar version of RA/Dec -- aware that that, too, would be
merely a useful model.

Pragmatically, I'd say that if people formulate useful laws of
motion like Newton that serve as a basis of celestial mechanics;
or discover and catalogue thousands of nebulae (as we now understand,
nebulae, open and globular star clusters, and galaxies) like Caroline,
William, and John Herschel; or study Cepheid variables and discover
the period-luminosity relationship like Henrietta Swan Leavitt, then
they are doing astronomy.

Consider, for example, the evolution of standard candles and yardsticks
for judging cosmic distances, ranging from parallaxes of nearby stars
to gravitational lenses and the like for the most distant galaxies.
However we view Solar System motions or timekeeping -- and I suspect
that everyone agrees on Keplerian mechanics and the length of the
sidereal days, however apt or otherwise you or I may consider
specific expositions of these -- astronomy is about the larger
universe, also, as your recognize in making some of your queries
about galactic revolution, for example.

What I'm seeking to do is not to cast horoscopes, but humbly to
follow in the footsteps of such as these -- with the awareness,
of course, that I'm unlikely with a 20cm Newtonian reflector to
make any new discoveries when it comes star clusters, nebulae,
or galaxies, my main interest; and also that I'll learn most
by taking my visual observations as opportunities to learn about
observations made using other electromagnetic wavelengths also.

In sum, I very much follow Nicholas of Cusa, Galileo, Newton,
and Einstein in recognizing that choices of frames of reference
are arbitrary -- with RA/Dec merely one convenient convention
for certain purposes.

Again, I appreciate your courteous invitation to dialogue, and
hope that I can worthily reciprocate.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

On Aug 30, 4:58 pm, Margo Schulter wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

You are learning from an astronomer rather than getting your
information about Kepler and his discoveries via the empirical cult
and specifically Newton's awful use of Keplerian
insights.Technically,if you wish to discover where Newton jumped the
tracks you listen intently to what Kepler has to say,then you look at
the technical mistake of Newton.

Hi, there, and I'd certainly regard it as common knowledge which I
learned as a child that Kepler based his formulations on the
observations of Tycho Brahe, sometimes regarded as one the last
outstanding astronomers of the pre-telescopic period.


You have it from Kepler himself that his working principles are based
on orbital comparisons between Earth and Mars,you have the actual
representation which shows that retrogrades are plotted positions
against the stellar background and resolved by an orbitally moving
Earth and that ,I assure you,is all you will ever need.




Before getting to the diagram, which I'm still digesting (reading
the whole article, which I just downloaded will help), I should make
an important point about how astronomers can and do view
"magnification" in perspective, and without discounting the value
of naked eye observation.


I requested that you stick with the ' Panis Quadragesimalis '
representation because it tells you far more about the way astronomers
like Copernicus and Kepler thought than any written commentary.




Thus in 1612, Simon Marius viewed the Great Nebula in Andromeda
(now known as the Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, or NGC 224) with an
early telescope and soon published a description, saying that
its luminosity had a quality like light viewed through transparent
horn. (An interesting image -- I wonder what kind of horn.) His
discovery was cited as the first in a number of other publications
over the next 150 years or so at least in Europe.

However, in fact, Abd-al-Rahman al-Sufi in Persia had observed and
described this same "little cloud" and published his observation
in 964 -- so that Marius merely independently rediscovered with
the novel optical aid of the telescope what al-Sufi and others
had seen with the naked eye.

Thus while telescopes are a big topic on sci.astro.amateur, this
shouldn't mean that naked eye observing is discounted -- nor
reasoning, which for example in the 14th century led Nicholas
Oresme to suggest that it would be more elegant to posit a
diurnal rotation of the Earth than a revolution in the same
period of the whole cosmos, some two centuries before the
telescope came into astronomical use.

Do you clearly understand what is goin on in the diagram on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

It's a striking diagram, with the retrograde motions or whatever aptly
called "pretzel"-like in a caption.


It is a striking diagram and second only to the Copernican arrangement
of planets.It represents the geocentric plotting of Mars against the
constellational background AND the heliocentric plotting of the
Earth's orbital motion against that of Mars.





Let me help you along -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler

Do you clearly and I mean clearly understand how retrogrades are
resolved using orbital comparisons and from there to the Keplerian
orbital refinement such as a less than circular orbit.

For clear understanding at this level, I'll need to study the whole
article carefully, which should be much worthwhile -- and I'll thank
you warmly for directing me to this source.


No you do not,you look at the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in
actual time lapse footage and you apply the same principle to the
diagram -

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

The whole point of Copernican heliocentricity,from an orbital
perspective,is that we see our own orbital motion when we acknowledge
that the apparent backward motion of the other planets is strictly due
to the faster forward motion of the Earth,in other words we see
heliocentric motion directly.

The junk astronomy which Newton created was based on an alternative
idea and resolution for retrogrades based on the idea that we do not
see heliocentric orbital motion directly from Earth -

" 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






I'm not sure if I'd call an ellipse a "less than circular" orbit, only
a member of the set of elliptical orbits of which a circular one would
be a subset. All I know is that by introducing the hypothesis of the
ellipse, he simplified lots of complications that would arise with
circular orbits, geocentric or heliocentric.


All you know so far has been conditioned by a view which supposes that
if you stick the Sun in the middle of the representation,the
retrogrades will disappear.If you had the correct appreciation of
Kepler's diagram you would never ,ever dream of believing in a
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency which is how Newton viewed
the matter -

'PHÆNOMENON IV.'
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. "
Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

As an astronomer watching all this unfold under the indifferent eyes
of observational astrologers,thank God you are spared the ability to
witness the utter destruction of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentric
reasoning.

..







Do you clearly understand what is badly wrong with Newton's worthless
view of and resolution of retrogrades based on his misintepretation
of that diagram of page 86 -

" 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

I'm not sure, it sounds to me like he's proposing the Sun as a good
frame of reference, since according to Kepler, if I recall correctly,
the sun is a focus of a planet's elliptical orbit.


Ah,even with contemporary imaging showing you how the Earth is seen to
overtake the outer planets as the principle argument for heliocentric
reasoning,you would resort to your hypothetical 'frame of reference'
based on an observer on the Sun.

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

The first thing I learned about magnifying astrologers is that they do
not like heliocentric astronomy,they would rather run to a
hypothetical observer on the Sun than actually enjoy the spectacle as
it is seen from Earth







Poor Isaac,thought if you replaced the Earth with the Sun at the
center of the diagram that retrogrades disappear or rather the poor
fools who followed Isaac in this careless belief.Perhaps there is a
severe reading disability in that you cannot read what Kepler is
saying -

"Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,with one
extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler

Maybe this is a crude amateur astronomer's misunderstanding, but I'd
take Newton as saying that from the Sun's perspective or frame of
reference, the planets are revolving in their orbits in consistent
directions -- although from Earth's perspective, for example, another
planet may appear to "change course" in retrograde motion, which, of
course, was a reason for all of those epicycles of the Ptolemaic
model, which an elliptical and heliocentric model can nicely make
unnecessary.


You have a tendency to defend Newton's ideas even though there is no
support for anything other than orbital comparisons .If you want to
hear it from Galileo then I add it to that of Kepler's statement -

[Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]



"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . . You see, gentlemen, with what
ease and simplicity the annual motion -- if made by the Earth -- lends
itself to supplying reasons for the apparent anomalies which are
observed in the movements of the five planets. . . . It removes them
all and reduces these movements to equable and regular motions; and it
was Nicholas Copernicus who first clarified for us the reasons for
this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems

You can see it clearly with modern imaging,no ambiguities or 'frames
of reference',just a clear view of the Earth orbital motion overtaking
the other planets -

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

Once you explain orbital motion this way then you can explain the
daily cycle via axial rotation,there is no other way to do it.





Let me guess,you never seen the Panis Quadragesimalis of Kepler
before,a representation which plots the motion of Mars against the
stellar background and then compares those plotted positions for Mars
with the orbital cycles of the Earth.Of course,you are an astrologer
and paste planetary motion to celestial sphere geometry via the Ra/Dec
system so Newton could justify the old calendrically based
'predictive' system for planetary location.

Please let me distinguish between some of the questions and assumptions
you present here. It seems to me that some of this discussion is about
the most useful frame of reference to use for certain purpose, and part
about the definition of an "astronomer" or "astrologer."

Thank you for presenting your ideas in a friendly dialogue, and I'll try
to do the same. Obviously the more I learn about Solar System dynamics,
the better an astronomer I'll be. And if the dialogue helps us both to
formulate better our concepts of "astronomy" or "astrology," then we
may both benefit.

I understand judicial astrology as the study of the stars and planets
for the purpose of assessing a person's character based largely on the
configuration of the heavens at the time of the person's birth, or of
assessing the "aspects" of that person's situation (or possibly of
some collectivity such as a given organization or nation or even the
general terrestrial scene) based on the configuration obtaining at
a given point or time, or over a given period of time.


You are an astrologer by virtue that you use constellational geometry
to explain the Earth's axial and orbital motions.Every star in an
imaginative constellation returns to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds of a 24 hour day -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

The Ra/Dec system is calendrically based,meaning that to keep a star
fixed to terrestrial longitudes at precisely 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds through 360 degrees ,you have to encircle the Earth in a
geometry that satisfies it and the celestial sphere does exactly
that.








I understand astronomy to be a branch of natural philosophy or
science concerned with what William Herschel has well called "the
construction of the heavens," to be ascertained both through
observation and through the application of reason.


We are all astronomers insofar as we live by the cycles of the
Earth.It would be nice to find an astronomer who recognised that the
natural noon cycles are unequal in a world full of astrologers who
believe the noon cycles are 24 hours exactly -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png







When I use RA/Dec, I am well aware that this is merely a mathematical
model of convenience, and that in reality the universe is not a
geocentric sphere. If a telescope were located on the Moon, I might
use a lunar version of RA/Dec -- aware that that, too, would be
merely a useful model.


It would be really nice to come across an intelligent person who
believed it is a convenience but unfortunately it is used to justify
the axial and orbital motion of the Earth -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png

You want to believe that the return of a star to a location in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds denotes the axial rotation of the Earth
like all contemporary references do and you have stepped over the
line and become an astrologer.Look at them all,all sounding perfectly
reasonable while being perfectly wrong -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml





Pragmatically, I'd say that if people formulate useful laws of
motion like Newton that serve as a basis of celestial mechanics;

You can stop right there.

What sets Newton and his followers apart is that they will swear blind
that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds,they need it to make their 'predictions work'.An intelligent
21st century person recognises that for a star to return every 23
hours 56 minutes or 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night,it
requires the 1461 day calendrical cycle to work.

if you can fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into a 4 year
system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days then good
for you.The short answer is that the system Newton built on exists
only in the imagination and it never worked.






or discover and catalogue thousands of nebulae (as we now understand,
nebulae, open and globular star clusters, and galaxies) like Caroline,
William, and John Herschel; or study Cepheid variables and discover
the period-luminosity relationship like Henrietta Swan Leavitt, then
they are doing astronomy.






Consider, for example, the evolution of standard candles and yardsticks
for judging cosmic distances, ranging from parallaxes of nearby stars
to gravitational lenses and the like for the most distant galaxies.
However we view Solar System motions or timekeeping -- and I suspect
that everyone agrees on Keplerian mechanics and the length of the
sidereal days, however apt or otherwise you or I may consider
specific expositions of these -- astronomy is about the larger
universe, also, as your recognize in making some of your queries
about galactic revolution, for example.


Creating the fiction of the difference between the 24 hour day and the
23 hour 56 minute 04 second day using the axial and orbital motions of
the Earth takes almost a diseased mentality -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png

You cannot escape the basic geometry of the astrological framework to
which you subscibe and I assure you that the 'sidereal' geometry is
astrological.





In sum, I very much follow Nicholas of Cusa, Galileo, Newton,
and Einstein in recognizing that choices of frames of reference
are arbitrary -- with RA/Dec merely one convenient convention
for certain purposes.


The great astronomical timekeeping system which generates the 24 hour
day,the complimentary calendrical system, civil timekeeping and the
magnificent correlation between clocks and terrestrial longitudes at
24 hours/360 degrees is born of a core principle that the noon cycle
is unequal and the 24 hour cycle is human devised.The flexibilty of
the system is knowing how the average 24 hour day is transfer to the
axial cycle as a constant insofar as one 24 hour cycle elapses into
the next was exploited by timekeeping astronomers who overlaid it on
terrestrial geography as 4 minutes for ach degree of geographical
seperation.

You believe you have a choice but in you system you have not.You can
create as many time 'definitions' as you wish but it all winds down to
the same celestial sphere core which ties axial rotation directly to
celestial sphere geometry -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png

You think you have a choice with that idea for the Earth's motions ?.







Again, I appreciate your courteous invitation to dialogue, and
hope that I can worthily reciprocate.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

No thanks,good kids will go to school this week and never learn where
the 24 hour day comes from,how these days keep elapsing fromTuesday
into Wednesday ect and how clocks were kept in sync with the axial
cycle as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation,instead they will be taught
about 'sidereal time' and the 24 hour natural noon cycle..Kids should
learn thjrough modern imaging how Copernicus resolved the behavior of
the other planets using an orbitally moving Earth which leaves axial
rotation to explain the daily cycle but instead they will be taught
worthless 'frames of reference' and hypothetical observers on the Sun.

On 30 Aug 2007 15:58:54 GMT, Margo Schulter
wrote:

Thus in 1612, Simon Marius viewed the Great Nebula in Andromeda
(now known as the Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, or NGC 224) with an
early telescope and soon published a description, saying that
its luminosity had a quality like light viewed through transparent
horn. (An interesting image -- I wonder what kind of horn.)

Cow's horn or hoof. Horn cut thin and polished was used as lamp
shades to diffuse light.

Bud

--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

Margo, I have a question for you: When you pass those poor homeless
souls on the street who are lost in some sort of mumbled argument with
themselves, do you stop to argue with them? If not, why not? Gerald is
obviously mentally ill. You do believe in metal illness do you not?

I am certainly tired of reading his silly nonsense, as are most of the
people here. This topic hardly constitutes an interesting discussion
given that it is trivially simple. You might just as well make sweeping
sophisticated-sounding historical arguments about how the earth isn't
really a freckle on the face of a fairy dancing on the head of a pin.
Who cares? It would seem to me that the ravings of a lunatic are not
worth discussing unless it is in regard to getting him the help he so
disparately needs. Instead of that, you are merely giving him the
attention he so desperately craves.

He doesn't get it. He is never going to get it. The worst part is that
you don't seem to get it either... You know what they say, "If you
argue with a fool you must argue like a fool or he will think himself
wise. If you argue like a fool you become a fool and the fool becomes
wiser then you. So never argue with a fool."

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

Greg Crinklaw writes:


You know what they say, "If
you argue with a fool you must argue like a fool or he will think
himself wise. If you argue like a fool you become a fool and the fool
becomes wiser then you. So never argue with a fool."

Or, in fewer words: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down
to their level and beat you with experience."

pej
--
Per Erik Jorde

On Aug 31, 6:18 am, Greg Crinklaw
wrote:
Margo, I have a question for you: When you pass those poor homeless
souls on the street who are lost in some sort of mumbled argument with
themselves, do you stop to argue with them? If not, why not? Gerald is
obviously mentally ill. You do believe in metal illness do you not?


Who knows Greg,maybe those poor homeless souls had a talent for
astronomy but never found their way past the indoctrinated numbskulls
who can't even manage to appreciate where the 24 hour day comes
from.The education system ,at least in terrestrial matters in
astronomy,geology and climatology, is rigged by mathematicians who
have no feel for the thinking of astronomers like Copernicus,Kepler
and Huygens.I can say this because your ideas for the axial and
orbital motion of the Earth do not exist -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png

Mental illness indeed !,what it takes to believe nonsense like
'sidereal time' and the Earth's axial and orbital motions when you
have the astronomical jewel like Huygen's treatise in front of you -

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




I am certainly tired of reading his silly nonsense, as are most of the
people here. This topic hardly constitutes an interesting discussion
given that it is trivially simple.

The Equation of Time principles which keep clocks in sync and the
axial cycle at precisely 24 hours/360 degrees are easy to understand
once you recognise that the noon cycles are of unequal length.The fact
that all reference books reference an alternative system where the
noon cycle are proposed as equal makes this a huge astronomical
topic -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml






You might just as well make sweeping
sophisticated-sounding historical arguments about how the earth isn't
really a freckle on the face of a fairy dancing on the head of a pin.
Who cares? It would seem to me that the ravings of a lunatic are not
worth discussing unless it is in regard to getting him the help he so
disparately needs. Instead of that, you are merely giving him the
attention he so desperately craves.


Who is going to accurately represent the insights of Copernicus,Kepler
and Galileo ? - you,Margo here or any of the other guys who can't
manage to handle basic astronomical tenets like the noon cycle.

Crave !,you have no idea whatr it takes to come here day in and day
out and see the flow of astronomical insights stopped dead because a
guy made an awful mistake back in the late 17th century.You are heavy
on insults directed towards me but as far as I am concerned you
insult yourselves believing nonsense and while you lot feel you owe
allegiance to somebody like Newton,modern imaging shows him to be a
careless bungler via his silly view and resolution of retrogrades.




He doesn't get it. He is never going to get it. The worst part is that
you don't seem to get it either... You know what they say, "If you
argue with a fool you must argue like a fool or he will think himself
wise. If you argue like a fool you become a fool and the fool becomes
wiser then you. So never argue with a fool."

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)


Look,go make your few dollars with your celestial sphere software,the
chances are that Google will do it in a spectacular fashion but what
they cannot do is explain why it is not satisfactory to use the Ra/Dec
observational convenience to explain the axial and orbital motion of
the Earth.

Casting doubts on Margo or anyone else for responding to me is
childish,this is an open forum on the internet and if you can't hack
technical arguments then don't bother reading them and go off and play
with your celestial sphere software.where you can do no
harm.Now,unless you have a technical point to make then disappear and
stop being a complaining nuisance.







SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye