Why the sun is hot

John Steinberg wrote:
In article .com,
oriel36 wrote:

You are great among yourselves and speak a
common lingo but is not the astronomical language I have come to know
and appreciate -

Big G, super G, G man...virtually all of we regular denizens of this
newsgroup use telescopes to survey the wonders of the celestial canopy.
This is the astronomy that we know, appreciate and discuss.


The Ptolemaic astronomers had already isolated planetary motion from
the stellar background and inferred periodic looping motions against a
stationary Earth -

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

This means that the celestial canopy or sphere is a fairly recent
invention emerging at the same time as pendulum clocks and
telescopes.Rather than dismiss it,I recognise the Ra/Dec system for
what it is -as an observational convenience.

The trick is not to base planetary orbital motion on that system and
precious few seem to be capable of discerning exactly why that is so.A
strong hint is that the justification for the system works with 3 years
of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.



This process of using telescopes for visual observation and/or
astrophotography is a very pleasing and relaxing pastime, and if you
read the newsgroup FAQ, which I will summarize as follows:


This is fine and I have not argued against those who wish to make
celestial objects appear bigger however the astronomical pursuit is so
much more than optics and photography.You are likely to quote from
Newton who created the dominant view held by people in this newsgroup
but these view are extremely damaging in the 21st century where
astronomy should turn back into looking on the Earth to see how its
motions affect climatology,
meteorology and geology or visa versa,how the astronomical records of
the planet are wrapped up in ice and rock strata.





sci.astro.amateur is a newsgroup particularly for
discussions of amateur equipment and suppliers;
discussions and questions about amateur observations.

You may discover that your postings do not generally conform to the
newsgroup charter. Brilliant though they may be.


The charter for astronomy is far,far older than mere telescope use and
it comes from a different faculty in human understanding - intuitive
intelligence.I have no doubt that there are brilliant engineers who can
solve and resolve any technical difficulting before them however the
affirmation and rejection of astronomical conceptual hypothesis
requires a more fluid approach based on physical considerations.Kepler
affirms this -

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that
diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . " KEPLER

You may live comfortably with the Newtonian mutation to the original
heliocentric framework but I have to take considerations of the
physical consequences of the Newtonian framework into account.Newton
appears to get the right answer but how he arrives at it is quite
another thing,I assure you that it is extremely intricate to extract
the mutations from the original working principles but it is eventaully
worth it.





Now, for example, I own a number of telescopes. A 4" APO, 8" and 5"
SCTs, 80mm F5 refractors, several pair of binoculars, a solar observing
instrument, quite a few eyepieces and various and sundry other bits and
pieces to engage in this hobby.

What kind of telescopes do you own and use? Unless I missed it, I don't
believe you've ever mentioned any of your personal equipment at all.
This suggests, although does not prove, that you are more of the
armchair astronomer than the type to get out there in the wild and get
your optics all dewy and such. Am I right here, Gerry baby?


The internet and time lapse footage are the greatest development in
astronomy and I am very much a person of my era,recognising that a
moving image says more than any words.I am promoting Copernican
heliocentricity ina 21st century way yet it is the way Galileo,Kepler
and Copernicus understood planetary motion and how to isolate orbital
motions and especially the orbital motion of the Earth.

How can you compete with the images of a faster Earth overtaking the
slower orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn in affirming that
heliocentric motion is seen directly from Earth thereby demolishing the
Newtonian mutation .


If you would be so kind as to read and re-read my summary until you
can repeat it verbatim and have fully metabolized the raison d¹être for
this newsgroup, I would be forever grateful.

After you've accomplished this feat -- a trivial task for someone as
learned and brilliant as you -- you may come to appreciate that we are
neither worthy of your attentions, nor able to comprehend the depth of
your comprehension on the topic of the exquisiteness of Kepler's
insights and Newton's complete *******izations of same.


Why talk yourselves down when somebody has to promote the great
insights of the astronomers who existed before telescopes.Are they any
less astronomers than you are ?.




In short, Big G, you are casting your pearls before we swine here. For
not only do we not possess the collective brain power to comprehend the
sagacity of your commentary, but also we do not, and I will type this
very slowly and carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding on
anyone's part here, GIVE A FLYING **** ABOUT YOUR ASININE,
PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MEANINGLESS WORD SALAD POSTINGS!

****, I CAN BARELY READ THEM AS YOU HAVEN'T THE COMMON DECENCY TO
FORMAT THEM PROPERLY.

Let me apologize for that outburst. It's just my inner child's
frustration at not being able to respond coherently to the brilliant
and difficult questions you ask of all us.

Fortunately, for us both, I am usually able to better suppress the
belligerence of my inner child and behave with more appropriate
decorum. Further, it is hard-wired into my very DNA to provide
guidance and direction, within the capabilities of my limited IQ, of
course. As such. I have taken the liberty of providing said assistance
with this posting.

Getting to know you has been something of a personal epiphany for me.
I thank you in advance for your Herculean contributions despite my, nay
our, inability to converse with you in a way that would prove mutually
satisfying.

--
-John Steinberg
email: lid

Whatever frustration you feel is nothing compared to that awful
condition where not a single person makes an attempt to understand the
basic astronomical concepts such as the relationship bettwen the
equable 24 hour day and axial rotation,the enormous efforts of the
Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomers,the consideration for future
generations infected by the empirical junk,astrophotographers who have
descended into a celestial sphere where the sun rises and sets along
with all the other celestial objects.

The loss of inspiration or what you know as genius is the worst part of
all this,it teaches that insincerity in the greatest of sciences -
astronomy is not just tolerated but actively defended.My pathetic
attempts may not do my ancestors any justice but at least they are
attempts.