#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Monday, August 11, 2014 2:50:23 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
You can decide whether or not this is acceptable: https://picasaweb.google.com/1122531... noredirect=1 This link will take you to a slideshow of the views of the sun at Hammerfest, just inside the arctic circle, at midsummer. You can easily see how the sun, planets and stars all follow the same path around the pole. As the sun reaches the edge of the slide the viewpoint changes. For the southern views the projection changes to allow views of the sun and Polaris. This is my first try at such a slideshow. You may have to copy and paste the link to make it work. I chose Hammerfest rather than the North Pole because you can go there yourself that this simulation is correct. Mike, tell me about that arc on each frame that is labeled "+ 30". Is that northern declination, or something else? The reason I ask, of course, is that the Sun never gets any higher than about 23.5 degrees north declination... just sayin'... \Paul A |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:50:23 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:27:29 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 02:25:17 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote: There is a wonderful astronomical symphony attached to the daily arcs of the Sun as our location arcs upwards from sunrise and reaches noon and then arcs downward hence we see this effect of a round an rotating Earth daily. The seasonal variations in that arc are due to an additional surface rotation to the central Sun which changes the length of time the Sun arcs from horizon to horizon and more interestingly the variations in height as a consequence of the orbital component of surface rotation. It is,of course, a new area of astronomy to visit with visual narratives even with a cult out there who insist in bypassing the daily arcs of the Sun by being fixated on circumpolar motion of the distant stars. There is no further need to revisit the hideous idea of the Sun following a circumpolar arc even if it is proposed as 'fact' to a society that has yet to engage with genuine astronomy through contemporary tools which include magnification but are not solely reliant on that facet of astronomy. There is a wonderful sense of freedom for those who are not disposed to distorting observations to suit a celestial sphere agenda whether they call it universal gravity,relativity or some other variation on those hapless themes. There is,however,a second chance for those who straighten out all the references which lead to explanations of cause and effect,solar system structure and so on in an atmosphere of cooperation and genuine healthy competition. This is all good and a sign that the stagnation which caused the life to go out of astronomy is now setting the groundwork for a return to a vibrant and productive state. . How it is that anyone (astronomer - by any definition, or any layperson) can logically assert that the Sun's apparent motion (on short time scales): is circumpolar; and say it with a clear conscience, is something you'll either figure out for yourself - or you won't. The daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon does not follow a circumpolar arc insofar as the daily arc is in the opposite direction to circumpolar motion looking South towards the Equator and variations in that arc from greater to smaller as the Earth moves from its June to December orbital position is matched in the Southern hemisphere by an opposite apparent movement in the same arc from smaller to greater and in the opposite arc to the Southern circumpolar stars. It is not a clear conscience as that assumes intelligence of some standard, what you are prepared to believes defies description as this is the apparent daily motion of the Sun and its seasonal variations that is being challenged because the Sun follows no circumpolar arc from horizon to horizon - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm The only acceptable variations in the arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon are the normal seasonal arcs with greater arcs away from the Equator as the season progresses towards hemispherical summer - http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...ing-sun-sm.gif With 3 centuries of empirical voodoo creating an interpretative atrophy in our race it is no wonder that not even the apparent motion of the Sun survives as an observation. You can decide whether or not this is acceptable: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm In your celestial sphere cult mind, you extend the Sun's daily arc in circumpolar motion to all locations on Earth with progressively wider arcs towards the Equator with Polaris at the center and between the daily motion of the Sun and the local horizon. I worked in Hammerfest and if you go there today you will see the familiar arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon in an opposite arc to circumpolar motion - http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/norway/hammerfest It is not possible now to explain how the surface rotation as a function of the planet's orbital motion begins to dominate at these latitudes because even the apparent daily arc of the Sun at all latitudes is questioned as an observation. It was true what Galileo said that your kind would become become extremely ill rather than accept what your eyes are telling you and this is only the apparent daily motion of the Sun and its annual variations in arc and not any translation of these motions in dynamical perspectives - I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill." Galileo Do any of you really wish to believe that as you look out at the familiar arc of the Sun today that Polaris will be somewhere between the Sun and the local horizon at noon ?. - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm This is what you get when you have mathematicians dominating astronomy for centuries, a loss of perspective that is so severe that it constitutes a type of extreme vandalism of pandemic proportions. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
palsing wrote:
On Monday, August 11, 2014 2:50:23 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote: You can decide whether or not this is acceptable: https://picasaweb.google.com/1122531... noredirect=1 This link will take you to a slideshow of the views of the sun at Hammerfest, just inside the arctic circle, at midsummer. You can easily see how the sun, planets and stars all follow the same path around the pole. As the sun reaches the edge of the slide the viewpoint changes. For the southern views the projection changes to allow views of the sun and Polaris. This is my first try at such a slideshow. You may have to copy and paste the link to make it work. I chose Hammerfest rather than the North Pole because you can go there yourself that this simulation is correct. Mike, tell me about that arc on each frame that is labeled "+ 30". Is that northern declination, or something else? The reason I ask, of course, is that the Sun never gets any higher than about 23.5 degrees north declination... just sayin'... \Paul A Altitude; this is a simulation using Luminos. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:42:08 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
palsing wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2014 2:50:23 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote: You can decide whether or not this is acceptable: https://picasaweb.google.com/1122531... noredirect=1 This link will take you to a slideshow of the views of the sun at Hammerfest, just inside the arctic circle, at midsummer. You can easily see how the sun, planets and stars all follow the same path around the pole. As the sun reaches the edge of the slide the viewpoint changes. For the southern views the projection changes to allow views of the sun and Polaris. This is my first try at such a slideshow. You may have to copy and paste the link to make it work. I chose Hammerfest rather than the North Pole because you can go there yourself that this simulation is correct. Mike, tell me about that arc on each frame that is labeled "+ 30". Is that northern declination, or something else? The reason I ask, of course, is that the Sun never gets any higher than about 23.5 degrees north declination... just sayin'... \Paul A Altitude; this is a simulation using Luminos. This is beyond fundamentalism insofar as a fundamentalist would at least recognize the apparent daily arc of the Sun ,your celestial sphere cult won't even recognize that. This is less a question than a statement of a truly dire situation and I will repeat it - Do any of you really wish to believe that as you look out at the familiar arc of the Sun today that Polaris will be somewhere between the Sun and the local horizon at noon ?. - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm Something has to give. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:34:13 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
Your link does not work, but even you are not so stupid that you can't see with your own eyes that both the Sun and the moon and the stars ALL rise in the east and set in the west, all day, every day; even planets in retrograde rise in the east and set in the west. I _tried_ to tell him that, but he won't listen to me. I think I've figured it out. When you look at stars in circumpolar motion, you are facing north. So they're rising from your _right_ hand. When you look at the Sun's path through the sky, you are facing south, so it rises from your _left_ hand! Either that, or stars only count as being in "circumpolar motion" when they're *underneath* Polaris, moving from West to East, and not when they're *above* Polaris, moving from East to West, because that motion isn't circumpolar, it's equatorial! Come to think of it, the latter explanation is more likely to be close to what he is thinking. John Savard |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 2:02:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 7:15:59 PM UTC-6, Bryan wrote: At a relatively small magnification MARS WILL LOOK AS LARGE AS THE FULL MOON TO THE NAKED EYE Well, _that's_ not the Moon hoax; it doesn't violate the laws of physics for Mars to look as big as the full moon does, from Earth... if you magnify Mars, b but not the Moon. However, that is a value of "relatively small" that requires at least a telescope with 8 inches of aperture. No, it should be possible to obtain enough magnification with even a small telescope. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:54:57 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
Do any of you really wish to believe that as you look out at the familiar arc of the Sun today that Polaris will be somewhere between the Sun and the local horizon at noon ?. - It certainly won't be between the Sun and the Southern horizon, but it will be between the Sun and the Northern horizon, looking away from the Sun. It is difficult for me to even imagine what you're getting at, though. John Savard |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:52:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
No, it should be possible to obtain enough magnification with even a small telescope. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mention that one should also have a sharp and clear image rather than a round red blur. Having seen Mars through a 4-inch telescope at about 480x magnification, the maximum recommended for that aperture, I know it was nowhere near as large in apparent diameter as the full moon. At a favorable opposition, a magnification of 1400x is required. This, at 60x per inch, requires an aperture of 23 inches. John Savard |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:36:54 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:52:15 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote: No, it should be possible to obtain enough magnification with even a small telescope. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mention that one should also have a sharp and clear image rather than a round red blur. Having seen Mars through a 4-inch telescope at about 480x magnification, the maximum recommended for that aperture, I know it was nowhere near as large in apparent diameter as the full moon. At a favorable opposition, a magnification of 1400x is required. This, at 60x per inch, requires an aperture of 23 inches. Assuming that Mars is 20 arc seconds and the Moon is ~ 1800 arc seconds in diameter, then 1800/20 = 90x would be sufficient at a favorable opposition, and well within reach of many small scopes. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
"Quadibloc" wrote in message ... On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:54:57 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote: Do any of you really wish to believe that as you look out at the familiar arc of the Sun today that Polaris will be somewhere between the Sun and the local horizon at noon ?. - It certainly won't be between the Sun and the Southern horizon, but it will be between the Sun and the Northern horizon, looking away from the Sun. It is difficult for me to even imagine what you're getting at, though. John Savard ================================================== ======== http://images.usatoday.com/news/scie...ator-3-use.jpg What has Kelleher puzzled in the above "photograph" is the angle the sun is rising in the North East, "behind" the camera. The arc travels from NE through South "above" Polaris to NW, which is the wrong way as far as Kelleher is concerned. Remember we are facing North with Polaris "in front" (not overhead) in the photograph. The Southern horizon is out of sight at the TOP of the photograph, our feet are facing North but we are bent over backwards and facing South once we look up and beyond Polaris. -- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light. (H. God Wilson thinks he's the God of Ballistic Light and can tell it what to do.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mars takes centre stage in IMAX spectacular | The Register | Nick | UK Astronomy | 0 | January 30th 06 12:11 PM |
MARS SPECTACULAR COMI | JOHN PAZMINO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 28th 05 07:35 AM |
MARS SPECTACULAR COMING--Huh? | W. Watson | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | June 20th 05 02:43 AM |
Europe's eye on Mars: first spectacular results from Mars Express(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 19th 04 06:58 PM |
Mars spectacular tonight in Jersey! | SirWmOsler | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | September 7th 03 12:51 PM |